a At hla 
AANA UF PRINCES 
SS NaN 

00120 1925 

/ 


é 






Py 
wa 
£OLecical seu” 


Division 


Section 











Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/fundamentalismve0Ounse 


weitere tt AIN DIB OO) KR SORE RAINES 


FUNDAMENTALISM 


Versus 


MODERNISM 


















THE HANDBOOK SERIES 


AGRICULTURAL CREDIT............ $1.25 
AMERICANIZATION, 2d ed....... 1.80 
CHILD) DABOR LS? tt oe ee 2.40 
iSLOSED SHOPS 2 decane. o ae 2.00 
DEBATERS’ MANUAL................. 1.50 
DISARMAMENT ee Ze) 
EUROPEAN WAR, VOL. II... 1.25 
FUNDAMENTALISM vs. Mop- 

ERNISMicl at peer eet, 2.40 
GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP 

OF COAL HVIINES 2 ae 


INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 
EMPLOYM’T MANAGEM’T... 2.40 
MopDERN INDUSTRIAL 

MOVEMENTS. o.oo ecccccsssseee-- 2.40 


MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT... 2.40 


Necro PROBLEM ............ 2325 
PRISON REFORM  oovccccccccscscssseeeosee wd 
PROHIBITION: MODIFICATION 

OF THE VOLSTEAD LaAw..... 2.40 


SHORT BALLOT... eee 15 
SOCIALISM 
STUDY OF LATIN AND GREEK | 80 
‘TAXATION 







SURAT OF PAVE 


\ GN 
RQCE BD 1925 


bs NY, 
£8. serpy) seule” 


FUNDAMENTALISM 


versus 


MODERNISM 


itis eh AN. D?B.O: ORNS 





COMPILED BY 
ELDRED C.Y“VANDERLAAN 


THE H. W. WILSON COMPANY 
NEW YORK 
1925 


Published March 1925 
Printed in the United States of America 


EXPLANATORY NOTE 


This book is intended to serve as a source book or in- 
troduction to the questions under discussion between the 
“Modernists” and the “Fundamentalists” in the American 
Protestant churches. It confines itself to the questions in 
dispute, and contains almost nothing relating to the out- 
ward course of the controversy, interesting as episodes of 
that story are. The main divisions of the book have been 
chosen in accordance with the questions most under dis- 
cussion. For example, no separate division has been de- 
voted to the doctrine of the atonement, nor to the second 
coming of Christ, because the present discussion has dealt 
little with these questions, though they are related to the 
others. The book aims to give a taste of what is being 
said on both sides of the controversy; though of course, 
in a collection of extracts and articles, neither side of 
such questions can be adequately presented. One who 
wishes to go more thoroughly into the subject should 
consult the works listed in the bibliography, particularly 
the historical works under 1 A, the Bible dictionaries, the 
introductions to the Old and New Testaments, etc. 

Needless to say, every effort has been made to pre- 
serve strict impartiality, both in the introduction by the 
compiler, and in the selection of material, by giving sam- 
ples of the best (and also of merely typical) argumen- 
tation on both sides. Where a disproportionate space is 
given to the Modernist side, this is partly because the 
conservatives are able to state their case more concisely, 
and also in order to illustrate the variety of the liberal 
approach. 


July, 1924 FE. C. VANDERLAAN 








’ 
: 
Pa 
by 4 
Pi 
ce 
\ ‘ 
a a 5 


————— «> = 





CONTENTS 


EXPLANATORY NOTE ..... a 8 ames Or The Compiler 
BIBLIOGRAPHY .... PROS 3ST PS RCs Rotet tated st 
PI RORUCTIONG | iow. Ui... os ae es ed Ne COMpier 


DANTE eGR NERA 


A. Historic AND RECENT CREEDS 


Bee roction @.CTCCU Ms. ta ce ree doh Me pee me 
om CCU CHM T CCUG See hts. al fu. Ga te dete PE, gna: 
Selected Passages from the Westminster Confession 
ep aOlisee hives OINtS sew. fesse cosh vee Nee 
ihe Creed of the Baptist Bible Union. .7...22 0. 
oe f RPE Hes Sy oe ae Christian Work 
Part of the Official Creed of a Denominational 
OME O GR Wh + Kong oe pedo) Educational Review 
The “Kansas City” Creed of the Congregationalists 


B. Brier STATEMENTS ABOUT THE PRESENT COoN- 
PROVERSY ted. i tte Ween Homiletic Review 


C. For tHe FUNDAMENTALISTS 


WMinatts a-Pindamentalist?. 2 au ae... Presbyterian 
Moimoivan on the <Pive Points’ se Ue se. Forum 


D. For THE LIBERALS 


[PG STRGTIS ¢ ana aeveeaeny Baca ie Re yenc gaol ie Renn SOR CE 
Fosdick, Harry Emerson. True Christianity Is Pro- 
Oe ORE 55.2 ia ag fh ssh cla am Ae wee viens 
Merrill, William Pierson. Protestantism at the Cross- 
SURV EIT ERE 5 OOS 2 Cag Rie ani LA Pe ea World’s Work 


XHi 


2g 


fo} 


2 


41 


41 


43 


Vili CONTENTS 


Re cer tis Ry eet crate ew pate Journal of Religion 
Tyson, Stuart L. The Issue Between the Funda- 
mentalists and Modernists..... Christian Work 
Merrill, William Pierson. The One Fundamental. . 
Pare ee ea cot ede ares Christian Work 
Fundamentalism, Modernism, and God............ 
Tod ON SCE et EEE ear oS EE Christian Century 
Fundamentalism, Modernism, and Christ......... 
Peace my We Sati) Cerne Christian Century 
Vedder, Henry C. We Must Follow Jesus, Not 
Patties, oie este ct cee cea ae ee ee 
Frank, Glenn. Liberalizing the Fundamentalist Move- 
38 ot 4 a Seem tS ula Smead Selb ei) Pe Century 
Van iDyke, Henry. The Religion ,of a. Eibecs 
GAPETStieth eee we cairene see ale ck eee Outlook 
Frank, Glenn. Why Conservative Christianity Is 
MoréPopular 05 sree ra eee Century 


E. An AtTTackK on BotH PARTIES 


Crapsey, Algernon S. The Shame of the Churches 
ge oer negate si Tein sce h cece tet ee Nation 


PART Tie CELE sao ie 
Kent, C. F. How the New Testament Came to Be 


A. In DEFENSE OF THE OLD VIEW 


Orr, James. Holy Scripture and Modern Negations 


Des Se ET eet LMA The Fundamentals 
Johnson, Franklin. Fallacies of the Higher Critt- 
OUST dln oem dare tie ieee er The Fundamentals 
Gray, James M. The Inspiration of the Bible— 
Definition, Extent, and “Prooi) -.2..5.2) es eo 
Sry: atta Det at ae ee eee The Fundamentals 


Macartney, Clarence E. A Conservative Presbyter- 
ian’s Understanding of “Inerrancy” .......... 
Saris ks. Vee ee dee Presbyterian 


104 


105 


io 


187 


CONTENTS ix 


B. In DEFENSE OF THE NEW VIEW 


Sentences from William Newton Clarke .......... 189 
Fundamentalism, Modernism, and the Bible ...... 
46) aE NR: OE RTO ee ee ar: Christian Century 189 
Ashworth, Robert A. We Should Not Claim Biblical 
MPa nity: van Fs oe it, uihaae 8 Christian Work 196 
Luther’s Free Attitude Toward the Bible ........ 197 
Clarke, William Newton. How the Bible Led One 
prudent tomtie, Lt reere Viewed. cyclase eh a se. 197 
Fosdick, Harry Emerson. Religious Progress Illus- 
aie ithinsthe }bible iy Oe eer ae aero se 201 
Drake, Durant. Why the Old View of the Bible Is 
BO SSIDLC NAY cotta atcha. ere Ed sea, 203 
McGiffert, A. C. Profound Effects of Biblical 
Ceniiersray es a3 a, American Journal of Theology 208 
Jefferson, Charles E. The Theory of Verbal Inspira- 
tion Convenient, but Absurd and Unnecessary 209 
Jefferson, Charles E. God Can Use Fiction and 


eens i VV CllcaSm LI ISLOL Yin onset rote wes ena eon 210 
Sabatier, A. The New Testament Not Intended to 

ou AM Trae er aCle, sx xmas g ie alton oly Fk akg 212 
Sabatier, A. The Old Argument from Prophecy and 

Pitiagiees sey OTthless: tees xe aa ede 213 
Sabatier, A. Infallible Authority in Protestantism 

PePMO CI CAL ys. ay) s¢-s usr cam aya an, by ota hm ie 214 


Sabatier, A. The Bible Valuable but Not Perfect... 214 
Fosdick, Harry Emerson. We Must Not Depend on 
Pit nOrity eit OR elIDIONARS. ea: CA we. eet aes 215 
Rashdall, H. Hastings. Christianity and the New 
HOA Liner pune reer eee Sunes ee Christian Century 218 
Scott, E. F. Great Gains from the New View .... 225 


PART III: SCIENCE AND RELIGION; 
EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE 
A. THE ARGUMENT AGAINST EVOLUTION 


Thomas, W. H. Griffith. What About Evolution?.. 231 
Mr. Bryan on Evolution ........ New York Times 250 


x CONTENTS 


B. THe ARGUMENT FoR EVOLUTION 


Newman, H. H. Summary of the Argument for 


HVGIOl ee Sosa tee nO Journal of Religion 263 
Conklin, Edwin Grant. A Scientist’s Reply to Mr. 
LEP US IR. chy UREA cabot gat | New York Times 263 
Osborn, Henry Fairfield. Another Scientist’s Reply 
TNL Ma Vath cao cee eee New York Times 272 
Smith, Gerald Birnie. Have the Evolutionists Ad- 
Ieee beate i eg og ween Journal of Religion 280 
Fosdick, Henry Emerson. Reply to Mr. Bryan in 
the Name of RENO eee New York Times 282 
Hillis, Newell D. Dayne Loss of Faith Explained 
SET ee ae RE HO mes Bee Po REE Forum 290 


Eddy, Sherwood. The Bible Not a Book of Science 292 
Joint Statement upon the Relations of Science and 


Religion 22g. sf, eae eer ee ee ee Science 294 
Barnes, Ernest William. The Influence of Science 
OO CUS tye. Smee eee Christian Work 296 


PART IV: MIRACTUES: THE | V URGING eros 
AND THE BODILY RESURRECTION 


A. MiRACLES IN GENERAL 


Hume, Davidse «On Miracles... c.9ee ee 307 

Rashdall, H. H. A Similar Modern Contention .... 308 

Gordon, George A. Miracles Not Essential to Chris- 
tlanity » 7. oe as ee 308 


B. Tue Vircin BirtH 


Gray, James M. Why We Believe in the Virgin 

Bigth sob Gbrist 0s boc. ii eo 311 
Warfield, B. B. The Virgin Birth Essential ...... 

PN re wot sits American Journal of Theology 324 
Rhees, Rush. The Virgin Birth Not Essential . 

Ag Stage ep ree American Journal of Theology 325 
Bacon, B. W. The Virgin Birth Historically Doubt- 

ad iadteh Bet lg at American Journal of Theology 328 


CONTENTS xi 


Gordon, George A. The Virgin Birth as a Slur on 
Banani Natureyand, Humans Levers ssi. Wink a 330 


C. Tue Bopity RESURRECTION 


Mullins, E. Y. The Resurrection of Jesus ........ aie 
Drake, Durant. Paul vs. the Gospels on the Resur- 
EECHGIE pe igeyseihis BO te Pere Sih ceo k teat sued K Oe as 344 
Gordon, George A. The Bodily Resurrection Not 
RL Seenlialig rey Msgs y.-< sete aetna ett. 345 


Rashdall, H. H. Bodily Resurrection Out of the 
Question, but Spiritual Appearances Possible... 348 

Lake, Kirsopp. Were the Women at the Right 
POON a Ne: evens heh lei etytt a tlel: « ctccbehiieie ie <3 346 


D. SUPPLEMENTARY EXTRACT 


Dr. Fosdick’s View of the Deity of Christ ...... 
Sa RY le RCD a a en ENE oP Christian Work 349 


Pen oe ie, POSTTION OF MODERNISTS IN 
ORTHODOX CHURCHES 


Mhemirirsons Bates: 2. ecu es ta New Republic 353 


A. AGAINST THE RIGHT OF THE MODERNISTS TO REMAIN 


PeiCeotatergentses cae a sues Homiletic Review 361 
Machen, J. Gresham. Modernists Have No Right 

Poe cCennsO@rthodox’ Ghurchessaice kr, Se: 362 
Bryan, William Jennings. Are Modernists Honest? 

«La ri ioe wy 2 Ri ee Si, Oe a ep ee ie Forum 363 
Machen, J. Gresham. Some Differences Do Not 

Prevent Christian Fellowship, but This One 


LY SSE a eR 8 a TR oN cp Ulla ape 365 
Pastoral Letter of the House of Bishops of the 
Protestant. piscopalt, GAUICH it. ost Waleiele aetee 366 


Macartney, Clarence E. The Creed of Presby- 
“SEUTSLDS: <c Ny elM aeA  RR Christian Work 369 


xii CONTENTS 

Manning, Rt. Rev. William T. A Message on the 
Present Situation in the Church. Christian Work 379 

SLI DUATIAA LEW fanaa eae ae Christian Register 392 


B. For THE RIGHT OF THE MODERNISTS TO REMAIN 


Bret statenentsa, ste era Homiletic Review 395 
Fosdick, Harry Emerson. An Exclusive or an In- 
Glisivé Church il. Ct a are a 396 
Merrill, William Pierson. The Comprehensive 
Greedtoty Presbyterians). wy Christian Work 397 
An Affirmation, Signed by Over 150 Presbyterian 
ViTmIStere i a eto los Fig Bs ae Christian Work 404 


Parks, Leighton. Intellectual Integrity, or the Equal 
Rights of Fundamentalist and Modernist in a 


Comprehensive Church’ a2 .2.. Christian Work 410 
Miller, Dickinson, S. Conscience and the Bishops: 
Ag ELIShOLICC ote) pute ann see eieare New Republic 426 


Faith and the Creeds; Letter from the Faculty of 
the Episcopal Theological School at Cambridge, 
Vise Meare ee Recent se aie rre ens Christian Work 439 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Note: This bibliography cannot claim to be exhaustive, al- 
though it is hoped that little of importance up to the time of 
compilation has been overlooked. New books and articles on 
the subject are constantly appearing. Some articles have been 
omitted from this list as not important. Certain periodicals deal 
so largely with the controversy that a full list of their relevant 
material would be almost a complete table of contents for the 
last five or more years. 


Books AND PAMPHLETS 


I. GENERAL 
A. Historical 


Buckham, John W. Progressive religious thought in 
America; a survey of the enlarging Pilgrim faith. 
ix,352p. Houghton Mifflin. New York. 1919. 

McGiffert, Arthur Cushman. The rise of modern relig- 
ious ideas. x,315p. Macmillan. New York. 1915. 

Moore, Edward Caldwell. An outline of the history of 
Christian thought since Kant. x,249p. Scribner. New 
York. 1916. 

Pfleiderer, Otto. The development of theology in Ger- 
many since Kant, and its progress in Great Britain 
since 1825. Tr. by J. F. Smith. xi,403p. London. 
1890. 

Weinel, Heinrich and Widgery, Alban G. Jesus in the 
nineteenth century. x,457p. T. & T. Clark. Edin- 
burgh. 1914. 


All these have modernist sympathies, but are very useful for 
a broad understanding of what lies behind the present con- 
troversy. 


Covert, John D., M.D., senior warden, and Anderson, 
Austin F., junior warden, Trinity Church, Fort 
Worth, Texas. The case against the Reverend Lee 
W. Heaton. 14p. Privately printed. 1923. 


An account of one of the episodes of the American con- 
troversy. 


Xiv SELECTED ARTICLES 


B. Theological 
A. CONSERVATIVE AND FUNDAMENTALIST 


Andrews, S. J. Christianity and anti-Christianity in their 
final conflict. 392p. Bible Institute Colportage Assn. 
Chicago. 

A typical premillennarian work. 

Bloore, John. Modernism and its re-statement of Chris- 
tian doctrine; is it the truth of God? 301p. Loizeaux 
Brothers. New York. 1923. 

Bryan, William Jennings. The Bible and its enemies. 
46p. Bible Institute Colportage Assn. Chicago. 1921. 

Bryan, W. J. Orthodox Christianity versus modernism. 
Revell. New York. 1924. 

Bryan, W. J. Seven questions is dispute. 158p. Sun- 
day School Times Company. Philadelphia. 1924. 
Conrad, A. Z. Jesus Christ at the cross roads. 148p. 

Revell. New York. 1924. 

Craig, S. G. Christianity according to Dr. Fosdick. Re- 
printed from The Presbyterian. Published by the au- 
thor. St. David’s, Pa. 

Evans, William. The great doctrines of the Bible. 275p. 
Bible Institute Colportage Assn. Chicago. 1912. 
Evans, William. What every Christian should believe. 
126p. Bible Institute Colportage Assn. Chicago. 

tee, 

Faulkner, J. A. Modernism and the Christian faith. 
306p. Methodist Book Concern. New York. 

A moderate conservative work. 

Fountain, Rev. Charles Hillman. Charges of teaching 
false doctrine are herein brought against the Rev. 
William H. P. Faunce, D.D., President of Brown 
University, and the Rey. Gerald Birnie Smith, D.D., 
professor in the Divinity School of the University of 
Chicago. 23p. To be had from the author. Plainfield, 
N.J. 1922. 


A document from the American controversy. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM XV 


Fountain, Rev. Charles Hillman. The case against Dr. 
Fosdick ; a reply to the report of the committee of the 
New York Presbytery which exonerated him of the 
charge of teaching doctrines contrary to the Bible and 
the Westminster Confession of Faith. 24p. To be 
had from the author at 936 West Seventh Street. 
Plainfield, N.J. 1924. 

Fundamentals, The. 12 small vol. Testimony Publishing 
Company. Chicago. 1910— (Later address, Los 
Angeles, Cal.) 

The Fundamentals of the Faith, as expressed in the arti- 
cles of belief of the Niagara Bible conference. 8p. 
Great Commission Prayer League. Chicago, 1914? 

Harris, Charles. Creeds or no creeds? A critical exam- 


ination of the basis of modernism. xxvi,383p. Lon- 
don. 1922. 


Horsch, John. Modern religious liberalism, the destruc- 
tiveness and irrationality of the new theology. 331p. 
Fundamental Truth Depot. Scottdale, Pa. 1921. 
Valuable for references to literature. 

Hushson, Rev. 5..C.320iH.G..- The, Apostles: creed; a 
simple explanation of the Christian faith. 35p. Holy 
Cross Press. West Park, N.Y. 1923. 

A typical “high church” or “Anglo-Catholic” document. 

Johnson, W. H. The Christian faith under modern 
searchlights. Stone lectures. 252p. Revell. New 
York. 1916. 


Keyser, Leander S. The rational test; Bible doctrine in 
the light of reason. 189p. Lutheran Publication Soci- 
ety. Philadelphia. 1908. 


Keyser, Leander S. Contending for the faith; essays in 
constructive criticism and positive apologetics. 351p. 
Doran. New York. 1920. 


Macartney, Clarence E. ‘ Twelve great questions about 
Christ. 221p. Revell. New York. 1923. 


Xvi SELECTED ARTICLES 


Machen, Prof. J. Gresham. Christianity and liberalism. 
180p. Macmillan. New York. 1923. 


Argues that liberalism is not Christianity, but a different 
religion. 


Massee, J. C., Goodchild, Frank M., and Laws, Curtis 
Lee. Baptist fundamentalism; an authoritative state- 
ment of its meaning and mission. 32p. Obtainable 
from the authors. 


McPherson, G. W. (of Old Tent Evangel, New York) 
The crisis in church and college. xii,238p. Yonkers, 
IN ee Lh: 


McPherson, G. W. Socialism and the new theology. 32p. 
Yonkers Book Company. Yonkers, N.Y. 1921. 


Mullins, E. Y. Why is Christianity true? Christian evi- 
dences. xx,450p. American Baptist Publication Soci- 
ety. Philadelphia. 

An able presentation of orthodox Christianity. 

Mullins, E. Y. Christianity at the crossroads. 289p. 

Doran. New York. 1924. 


Riley, W. B. The menace of modernism. Christian Al- 
liance Publishing Co. 1917. 
By a leading Baptist fundamentalist. 

Simpson, W. J. Sparrow. Modernism and the person of 
Christ. 104p. R. Scott. London. 1923. 


An answer to the papers in the Modern Churchman, Septem- 
ber, 1922. 


Straton-Potter debates. See under next heading. 

Torrey, R. A. The fundamental doctrines of the Chris- 
tian faith. 328p. Doran. New York. 1918. 

Weston, Rt. Rev. Frank, Bishop of Zanzibar. The Christ 
and his critics; an open letter to the European mis- 
sionaries of his diocese. xi,179p. Mowbray. London. 
1919. 

B. LIBERAL AND MODERNIST 

Abbott, Lyman. What Christianity means to me; a 
spiritual autobiography. xi,194p. Macmillan. New 
York. 1921. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM XVil 


Ames, Edward Scribner. The new orthodoxy, ix,127p. 
University of Chicago Press. 1918. 

Prof. Ames must not be taken as representing all modernists. 

Bousset, Wilhelm. Jesus. Tr. by Janet P. Trevelyan. 
vi,2llp. Putnam. New York. 1906. 

An example of the German liberal view of Jesus. 

Brown, William Adams. Christian theology in outline. 
xv1,468p. Scribner. New York. 1906. 

A modernist work making much use of traditional termin- 
ology. 

Clarke, William Newton. An outline of Christian theol- 
ogy. ix,488p. Scribner. New York. 1898. 21st 
ed. 1914. 

Has had great influence upon American liberal theology. 

Coffin, Henry Sloane. The practical aims of a liberal 
evangelicalism; Closing address, May 18, 1915. 8p. 
Union Theological Seminary. New York. 1915. 

Coffin, Henry Sloane. Some Christian convictions; a 
practical restatement in terms of present-day think- 
ing, 1x,222p. Yale University Press. 1915. 


Day, William Horace and Eddy, Sherwood. The mod- 
ernist-fundamentalist controversy. 30p. Doran. New 
York. 1924. 


Drake, Durant. Problems of religion; an introductory 
survey. xli,425p. Houghton Mifflin. New York. 
1916. 

A deeply religious discussion of the whole field of religion 
by a thorough modernist. Must not be taken as in all points 
representative. 

Ellwood, C. A. The reconstruction of religion; a socio- 
logical view. xv,323p. Macmillan. New York. 1922. 
Calls for a drastic revision of religion from a social point of 

view. Not typical. 

Fitch, Albert Parker. Can the church survive in the 
changing order? 79p. Macmillan. New York. 1920. 


Fosdick, Harry Emerson. Christianity and progress. 
247p. Revell. New York. 1922. 


XViii SELECTED ARTICLES 


Foster, George Burman. The finality of the Christian 
religion. xvi,o18p. University of Chicago Press. 
1906. 

One of the most thoroughly modernist works. 

Foster, George Burman. Christianity in its modern ex- 
pression. . . ed. by Douglas Clyde Macintosh.  xziit, 
294p. Macmillan. New York. 1921. 

Edited after Prof. Foster’s death from his lecture notes. 

Harnack, Adolph. What is Christianity? Lectures de- 
livered in the University of Berlin. .. Tr. by T. B. 
Saunders. 2d ed., revised. 322p. Putnam. New York. 
1903. 


Finds the essence of Christianity to be the teachings of Jesus. 
Holtzmann, | @sear. , Phe life of) Jesus; Lrivby ais 

Bealby, B.A., and Maurice A. Canney, M.A. xiv, 

542p. A. & C. Black. London. 1904. 

A typical modernist picture of “the Jesus of history.” 

Horton, R. F. My belief; answers to certain relig- 
ious difficulties. 294p. London. 1908. 

Inge, William Ralph, Dean of St. Paul’s, London. Out- 
spoken essays, second series. (The essay Confessio 
fide). Longmans. 1922. 

Jefferson, Charles Edward. Things fundamental; a 
course of thirteen discourses in modern apologetics. 
vili,3/2p. Crowell. New York. 1903. 

Jefferson, C. E. Five present day controversies. Revell. 
New York. 1924. 

King, Henry Churchill. Reconstruction in theology. 357p. 
Macmillan. New York. 1901. 

Lawrence, Rt. Rev. William, Bishop of Massachusetts. 
Fifty years. 97p. Houghton Mifflin. New York. 1923. 

Loofs, Friedrich. What is the truth about Jesus Christ? 
Problems of Christology discussed in six Haskell 
lectures at Oberlin, Ohio. viii,241p. Scribner. New 
York. 1913. 

Mathews, Shailer. The gospel and the modern man. 
vii-xiii,33lp. Macmillan. New York. 1910. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM xix 


Munger, T. T. The freedom of faith. vi,397p. Lon- 
don. no date. 
An older work. 

Parks, Leighton, rector of St. Bartholomew’s Church, 
New York. What is modernism 154p. Scribner. 
New York. 1924. 

Patton, Carl S. Religion in the thought of today. Mac- 
millan. New York. 

Schleiermacher, F.E.D. On religion; speeches to its 
cultured despisers. Tr. with introduction by John 
Oman, B.D. !viii,287p. London. 1893. 


An epoch-making work of one of the founders of modern 
theology. Appeared in 1799. See especially the second discourse. 
Schleiermacher’s later work on systematic theology, Der christ- 
ire Glaube, has unfortunately never been translated into Eng- 
ish, 


Ritschl, Albrecht. A critical history of the Christian 
doctrine of justification and reconciliation. Tr. from 
the German by John S. Black. xvi,605p. Edmonston 
and Douglas. Edinburgh. 1872. 


With Schleiermacher, Ritschl is one of the fathers of modern- 
ist theology. 


Shotwell, James T. The religious revolution of today. 
vili,162p. Houghton Mifflin. New York. 1913. 

Smith, Gerald Birnie. Social idealism and the changing 
theology; a study of the ethical aspects of Christian 
doctrine. xxiii,25lp. Macmillan. New York. 1913. 

Smith, G. B., ed., and others. A guide to the study of 
the Christian religion. x,759p. University of Chicago 

BE ress.a1916. 


An excellent introduction to the whole modernist point of 
view in scholarship and theology. 


Smyth, Newman. Old faiths in new light. xu,391p. New 
York. 1879, 

Sterrett, J. Macbride. Modernism in religion. xiii,186p. 
Macmillan. New York. 1922. 


Straton-Potter. Debates between Rev. John Roach Stra- 
ton, D.D., and Rev. Charles Francis Potter, M.A., 


xx . SELECTED ARTICLES 


S.T.M. 5 vols. each 50 cents. Doran. New York. 
1924. 


Titles: I. The battle over the Bible. II. Evolution vs. crea- 
tion. III. The virgin birth—fact or fiction? IV. Was Christ 
both God and man? V. Utopia—by man’s effort or Christ’s re- 
turn? 


Snowden, James H. The basal beliefs of Christianity. 
ix,252p. Macmillan. New York. 1911. 

Vedder, Henry C. The fundamentals of Christianity; a 
study of the teachings of Jesus and Paul. xxiii,250p. 
Macmillan. New York. 1922. 

Argues that Christianity must follow Jesus, not Paul. 

Warschauer, Joseph. Jesus: seven questions. Chapters 
in reconstruction. 301p. Pilgrim Press. Boston. 1908. 

Youtz, Herbert Alden (of Oberlin Graduate School of 


Theology). The enlarging conception of God. ix, 
199p. Macmillan. New York. 1914. 


II. THE BIBLE 
A. For the Old View 

Fitchett, Wulliam Henry. Where the higher criticism 
fails ; a critique of the destructive critics. 191p. Meth- 
odist Book Concern. New York, Cincinnati, 1922. 

Gaussen, F. S. R. L. Theopneusty, or the plenary in- 
spiration of the Holy Scriptures. Tr. by E. N. Kirk. 
4th American ed. New York. 1850. 

A classic presentation of the full doctrine of inspiration. 

Goodchild, Frank M., D.D. The Bible—God’s Word. 12p. 
American Baptist Publication Society. Philadelphia. 
no date. 

Gray, James M. Christian workers’ commentary on the 
Old and New Testaments. 447p. Bible Institute 
Colportage Assn. Chicago. 1915. 

Gray, James M. The outposts of the citadel; or, Why 
I believe the Bible will stand. 14p. Bible Institute 
Colportage Assn. Chicago. No date. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM XxI 


Green, William Henry. The higher criticism of the Pen- 
tateuch, xiii,184p. Scribner. New York. 1895. 


A well known argument against the critical views by a Prince- 
ton Seminary professor. 


McPherson, G. W. The modern conflict over the Bible. 
vii,213p. Yonkers, N.Y. 1919. 

Orr, James. The problem of the Old Testament con- 
sidered with reference to recent criticism. 1iii,562p. 
Scribner. New York. 1906. 


Conservative, but does not claim that Moses wrote the Penta- 
teuch in its present form. 


Orr, James. Revelation and inspiration. x1i,224p. Scrib- 
ner. New York. 1910. 


Conservative, but does not claim literal inerrancy of the 
Bible. 


Orr, James, ed. International standard Bible encyclo- 
pedia. 5 vols. Howard-Severance Co. Chicago. 1915. 

7 Very valuable as the work of the best conservative scholar- 

ship. 

Raven, John Howard. Old Testament introduction: gen- 
eral and special. 362p. Revell. New York. 1906. 


A good brief treatment of questions of date and authorship 
from a very conservative standpoint. 


Schaller, John. The book of books; a brief introduction 
to the Bible for Christian teachers and readers. 332p. 
Concordia Publishing House. St. Louis. 1918. 


Scroggie, W. Graham. Is the Bible the Word of God? 
121p. Sunday School Times Company. Philadelphia. 
1922. 


Wilson, Robert Dick. Is the higher criticism scholarly? 
Clearly attested facts showing that the destructive 
“assured results of modern scholarship” are indefens- 
ible. 62p. Sunday School Times Company. Phila- 
delphia. 1922. 

Zahn, Theodore. Introduction to the New Testament. 
Tr. from the third German edition by J. M. Trout, 
etc. 3 vols. T. & T. Clark. Edinburgh. 1909. 


A scholarly conservative work. 


XXli SELECTED ARTICLES 


B. Representing the New View 


Bacon, Benjamin Wisner. An introduction to the New 
Testament. xv,285p. Macmillan. New York. 1900. 

Bacon, B. W. The fourth gospel in research and debate. 
xii,544p. Moffat, Yard & Co. New York. 1910. 

Bacon, B. W. Jesus and Paul. viii,25lp. Macmillan. 
New York. 1921. 

Bacon, B. W. He opened to us the Scriptures; a study 
of Christ’s better way in the use of Scripture. 116p. 
Macmillan. New York. 1923. 

Best, Nolan R. Inspiration; a study of divine influence 
and authority in the Holy Scriptures. 160p. Revell. 
New York. 1923. 

Bewer, Julius A. The literature of the Old Testament 
in its historical development. xiv,452p. Columbia 
University Press. New York. 1922. 

Carpenter, J. Estlin. The Bible in the nineteenth cen- 
tury. xvi,512p. Longmans. London. 1903. 

Cheyne, T. K., and Black, J. S., ed. Encyclopaedia bib- 
lica; a critical dictionary of the literary, political, and 
religious history, the archaeology, geography, and 
natural history of the Bible. 4 vols. Black. London; 
Macmillan. New York. 1899-1903. 

Represents the more radical modern views. 

Clarke, William Newton. The use of the Scriptures in 
theology. x,170p. Scribner. New York. 1905. 

Clarke, William Newton. Sixty years with the Bible; 
a record of experience. 259p. Scribner. New York. 
1917. 

An interesting account of the author’s gradual change of view. 

Dods, Marcus. The Bible, its origin and nature. xiv,245p. 
Scribner. New York. 1905. 

Driver, S. R. An introduction to the literature of the 
Old Testament. T. & T. Clark. Edinburgh. 1891. 
9th ed. revised. 1913. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM XXiii 


Fosdick, Harry Emerson. The modern use of the Bible. 
Yale lectures. Macmillan. 1924. 

Gibson, John Monro. The inspiration and authority of 
Holy Scripture; with an introduction by Principal 
Forsyth. xvili,246p. Revell. New York. 1912. 

Gladden, Washington. Who wrote the Bible? A book 
for the people. 381p. Boston and New York. 1891. 
Popularizes moderate critical views. 

Gore, Charles, and others. Lux mundi. A series of 
studies in the religion of the incarnation. x,525p. 
London. 1890. See especially the essay on The Holy 
Spirit and inspiration. 

Convinced many in England that orthodoxy can adopt the 
critical views of the Old Testament. 


Hall, Francis J. The Bible and modern criticism. 44p. 
Young Churchman’s Company. Milwaukee. 1915. 
A cautious and qualified adoption of the newer view. 

Hastings, James, ed. A dictionary of the Bible, dealing 
with its language, literature, and contents, including 
the Biblical theology. 4 vols. and an extra vol. T.& T. 
Clark. Edinburgh; Scribner. New York. 1898—. 
Represents more moderate critical views than the Encyclo- 

peedia Biblica. 

Jordan, W. G. Biblical criticism and modern thought; 
or, the place of the Old Testament documents in the 
life of today. xi,322p. T. & T. Clark. Edinburgh. 
1909. 

Juelicher, Adolf. An introduction to the New Testa- 
ment. Tr. by Janet P. Ward, with prefatory note 
by Mrs. Humphrey Ward. xxi,635p. London. New 
York. 1904. 

Kent, Charles Foster. The origin and permanent value 
of the Old Testament. 12+270p. Scribner. New 
York. 1906. 

McFadyen, John Edgar. The use of the Old Testament 
in the light of modern knowledge. 255p. James 
Clarke & Co, London. 1922. 


XXIV SELECTED ARTICLES 


Moffatt, James. An introduction to the literature of the 
New Testament. 630p. Scribner. London and New 
York. 1911. 

Sabatier, Auguste. Religions of authority and the reli- 
gion of the spirit. Tr. by Louise Seymour Houghton. 
xxi,410p. Hodder & Stoughton. London; Doran. 
New York. 1904. 

Scott, Ernest Findlay. The fourth gospel; its purpose 
and theology. vii,379p. T. & T. Clark. Edinburgh. 
1906. 

Scott, E. F. The New Testament today. 92p. Macmil- 
lan. New York. 1921. 

Smyth, J. Paterson. How God inspired the Bible; 
thoughts for the present disquiet. viii,222p. Eason. 
Dublin. 1892. 

Temple, Frederick, and others. Essays and reviews. 
433p. London. 1860. 


Thought radical in its day, especially on inspiration and 
future punishment. Now usually considered very moderate, if 
not conservative. 


Tyson, Stuart L. The progressive revelation of the Bible. 
23p. Edwin S. Gorham. New York. 1922. 

Warschauer, Joseph. What is the Bible? A modern 
survey. 327p. J. Clarke & Co. London. 1911. 

Willett, Herbert L. Our Bible: its origin, character, and 
value. 278p. Christian Century Press. Chicago. 1917. 

Zenos, A. C. Elements of the higher criticism. Funk & 
Wagnalls. New York. 1895. 


III. EvoLution 


King, Henry Churchill. A selected bibliography of evo- 
lution. 15p. The News Press. Oberlin, Ohio. 1899. 


Otto, Rudolf. Naturalism and religion. Tr. by J. Ar- 
thur Thomson and Margaret R. Thomson, edited 
with an introduction by W. D. Morrison. xii,374p. 
Putnam. New York. 1907. 


Useful in this connection for an insight into post-Darwinian 
theories of evolution. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM XXV 


A. Against the Theory of Evolution 


Bryan, William Jennings. In His image. 266p. Revell 
New York. 1922. 

Conant, Judson E. The church, the schools, and evolu- 
tion. 90p. Bible Institute Colportage Assn. Chicago. 
1922. 

Fairhurst, Alfred (professor of natural science in Ken- 
tucky University). Organic evolution considered. 
474p. Standard Publishing Co. Cincinnati. 1897. 3d 
ede 1911. 

Fairhurst, Alfred. Theistic evolution. 173p. Standard 
Publishing Co. Cincinnati. 1919. 

Gridley, Albert L. The first chapter of Genesis as the 
rock foundation for science and religion. 216p. R. 
G. Badger. Boston. 1913. 

McCann, Alfred W. God—or gorilla; how the monkey 
theory of evolution exposes its own methods, refutes 
its own principles, denies its own inferences, dis- 
proves its own case. Devin-Adair. New York. 1922. 

Mead, Willis Waldo. Evolution discredited. 8p. Gospel 
Union Publishing Company. Kansas City, Mo. 1923. 
Published anonymously. 

Orr, James. God’s image in man and its defacement, in 
the light of modern denials. xv,325p. 3d ed. Arm- 
strong. New York. 1907. 

Patterson, Alexander. The other side of evolution; an 
examination of its evidences. With introduction by 
George Frederick Wright. 173p. 

Porter, J. W. Evolution—a menace. 94p. Sunday School 
Board, Southern Baptist Convention. Nashville, 
Tenn. 1922. 

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. What about evolution? 24p. 
Bible Institute Colportage Assn. Chicago. 1918. 


B. For Evolution 


Abbott, Lyman. The theology of an evolutionist. vii, 
191p. Houghton Mifflin. New York. 1898. 


xxvi SELECTED ARTICLES 


Coulter, John M. and Coulter, Merle C. Where evolu- 
tion and religion meet. 105p. Macmillan. New York. 
1924. 

Darwin, Charles. The origin of species by means of 
natural selection; or, The preservation of favored 
races in the struggle for life. First edition, 1859. Nu- 
merous later editions. 

The starting point of modern discussion of evolution. 

Darwin, Charles. The descent of man and selection in 
relation to sex. First published in 1871. 

Dawson, Marshall. Nineteenth century evolution and 
after; a study of personal forces affecting the social 
process, in the light of the life-sciences and religion. 
x1,145p. Macmillan. New York. 1923. 

Fosdick, H. E. and Eddy, Sherwood. Science and re- 
ligion; evolution and the Bible. 42p. (Reprinted arti- 
cles and extracts). Doran. New York. 1924. 

Geddes, Patrick and Thomson, J. Arthur. Evolution 
(Home university library of modern knowledge). 
255p. Henry Holt & Co. New York. 1911. 

A convenient introduction to the subject. 

Kellogg, Vernon L. Darwinism today; a discussion of 
present-day scientific criticism of the Darwinian se- 
lection theories, together with a brief account of the 
principal other proposed auxiliary- and alternative the- 
ories of species-forming. x1i,403p. Henry Holt & Co. 
New York. 1907. 

Lane, Henry Higgins. Evolution and Christian faith. 
xi,214p. Princeton University Press. 1923. 

Rice, William North. The Christian faith in an age of 
science. xii,425p. Armstrong. New York. 1903. 
Shearman, J. N. The natural theology of evolution. xv, 

288p. London. 1915. 

Smith, Hay Watson. Evolution and Presbyterianism. 

115p. Allsopp and Chapple. Little Rock, Ark. 1923. 


Stewart, George Craig. Evolution: a witness to God. 
Witness Publishing Co. Chicago. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM XXV1I 


Teller, Woolsey. Evolution—or McCann. 79p. Truth 
Seeker Co. New York. 1922. 

Thomson, J. Arthur, ed. The outline of science; a plain 
story simply told. 4 vols. Putnam. New York. 1922. 

Unwin, E. E. Religion and biology. 185p. Swarthmore 
Press. London; Doran. New York. 1922. 

White, Andrew D. A history of the warfare of science 
with theology in Christendom. 2 vols. Appleton. 
New York. 1896. 


IV. MuRAcLES 
A. Miracles in General 
Bruce, A. B. The miraculous element in the gospels; a 
course of lectures on the “Ely foundation” delivered 
in Union Theological Seminary. 391p. Armstrong. 
New York. 1886. 
Gordon, George A. Religion and miracle. xi,244p. 
Houghton Mifflin. New York. 1909. 
Argues that religion can dispense with miracles, if necessary. 
Hume, David. Of miracles (An enquiry concerning hu- 
man understanding, section X). London and New 
York. 1894. Reprinted from the edition of 1777. 


A famous old attack on the credibility of miracles. 


B. The Virgin Birth 

Gray, James M. Why we believe in the virgin birth of 
Christ. 14p. Bible Institute Colportage Assn. Chi- 
cago. 1924. 

Hughson, Rev. Shirley C., O.H.C. Modernism and the 
virgin birth of Christ. 10p. Holy Cross Press. West 
Park, N.Y. 1924. 

A defense of the doctrine by an “Anglo-Catholic.” 

Orr, James. The virgin birth of Christ. xiv,301p. Scrib- 
ner. New York. 1907. 

A careful investigation and defense of the doctrine. 

Lobstein, Paul. The virgin birth of Christ; an historical 
and critical essay. Tr. by V. Leuliette. Edited with 


XXVIii SELECTED ARTICLES 


an introduction by Rev. W. D. Morrison, LL.D. 138p. 
Putnam. New York. 1903. 
Finds the belief unfounded. 

Palmer, Frederic. The virgin birth. 56p. Macmillan 
New York. 1924. | 
Finds the belief not essential to Christianity. 


C. The Bodily Resurrection 


Nore: The virgin birth and the pees resurrection are also discussed 
in many of the works listed under I 


Bowen, Clayton R. The resurrection in the New Testa- 
ment; an examination of the earliest references to the 
rising of Jesus and of Christians from the dead. viii, 
492p. Putnam. New York. 1911. 


Finds the idea of resuscitation of the body a later develop- 
ment. 


Lake, Kirsopp. The historical evidence for the resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ. viti,291p. Putnam. New 
York. 1907. London; Williams & Norgate. 


Finds belief in bodily resurrection and the empty tomb his- 
torically unfounded and unnecessary. 


Orr, James. The resurrection of Jesus. 292p. Jennings 
& Graham. Cincinnati. No date. 
A defense of the belief. 

Simpson, W. J. Sparrow. The resurrection and modern 
thought. ix,462p. Longmans. London. 1911. 
A defense. 

Sweet, Rev. Louis Matthews. The birth and infancy of 
Jesus Christ according to the gospel narratives. xii, 
365p. Westminster Press. Philadelphia. 1906. 


V. Tue Position or MODERNISTS IN ORTHODOX CHUCHES 


Hughson, Rev. S. C., O.H.C. The age and the issue; 
a sermon preached in Trinity Church, New York. 
18p. Holy Cross Press. West Park, N.Y. 1923. 
Defends the right of the church to eject heretics. 

Tyson, Rev. Stuart L. Truth and tradition; a reply to 
Father Hughson’s sermon, “The age and the issue.” 
22p. Pamhplet No. 4. Tyson Lectureship Foundation, 
Inc. 289 Fourth Ave., New York. No date, 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM XXiX 


Creeds and loyalty; essays on the history, interpretation, 
and use of the creeds; by seven members of the fac- 
ulty of the Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, 
Mass. 170p. Miacmillan. New York. 1924. 


PERIODICALS AND ARTICLES 


I, For GENERAL INFORMATION 


American Journal of Theology. 20: 321-32. J1. 716. The 
progress of theological thought during the past fifty 
years. Arthur Cushman McGiffert. 

American Journal of Theology. 20: 333-44. Jl. 716. Re- 
ligious advance in fifty years. W. H. P. Faunce. 
Christian Work. New York. A religious weekly with 
mild modernist leanings, but prints important ser- 
mons and articles on both sides of the controversy. 

Christian Work. 112: 787-9. Je. ’22. The rift in the Bap- 
tist lute. Rev. Robert A. Ashworth, D.D. 

Current Opinion. 76: 209-12. F. ’24. Dissension shakes 
the churches. 

Educational Review. 65:74-7. F. ’23. Academic free- 
dom, fundamentalism, and the dotted line. A. Wake- 
field Slaten. 

Contains several recent creeds. . 

Homiletic Review. 86: 186-90. S. ’23. The battle within 
the churches; fundamentalism vs. liberalism. 

Brief statements from many ministers. 

Homiletic Review. 86:272-7. O. ’23. What the laity 
thinks of the war in the churches. 

Brief statements from educators, writers, etc. 

Interpreter (London). 20: 192-200. Ap. ’24. Fundamen- 
talists and modernists in America. Rev. H. D. A. 
Major, B.D., Principal of Ripon Hall, Oxford. 

An excellent account. 

Literary Digest. 77 No. 11: 30-2. Je. 16, 23. The Pres- 
byterian fight for the old faith. 

Literary Digest. 80 No. 1:31-2. Ja. 5, ’24. The battle 
of the creeds, 


ok SELECTED ARTICLES 


Review of Reviews. 68: 88-9. Jl. ‘23. Theology, religion, 
and science. 

ae the “five points” and the “joint statement” (see be- 

OW ). 

World’s Work. 46:469-77. S. ’23. The war in the 
churches. Rollin Lynde Hartt. For other articles in 
this series see under Bible, Evolution, etc. 


Il. GENERAL EXPRESSIONS OF FUNDAMENTALISM 


Christian Work. 116:702. My. 31, ’24. Creed of the 
Baptist Bible Union. 

Churchman. 129 No. 13:12-14. Mr. 29, ’24. What is 
modernism? Rev. S. C. Hughson, O.H.C. 

Forum. 70: 1665-80. Jl. ’23. The fundamentals. Wil- 
liam Jennings Bryan. 
Discusses the “five points” and evolution. 

Fundamentalist. Published by the Baptist Union of New 
York, Rev. John Roach Straton, editor. See espe- 
cially the issue of My. 15, ’24, which lists Baptist 
modernists— “the Black Book of Baptist Unbelief.” 

Gospel Witness. (Weekly) Jarvis Street Baptist Church, 
Toronto, Can. $2.00 per year, 5 cents per copy. 

Moody Bible Institute Monthly. Chicago. 

Nation. 118:53-4.., Ja. 16,.’24. The shame of the 
churches. Algernon S. Crapsey. : 


A severe indictment of both parties in the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church by a social radical, himself once expelled for 


heresy. 

Presbyterian. Philadelphia, A leading fundamentalist 
weekly. 

Presbyterian. 93 No. 8: 7-10; No. 9:7-10; No. 10: 8-11. 
F. 22, Mr. 1, Mr. 8, 23. Christianity according to Dr. 
Fosdick. S. G. Craig. 

Also published as a book. 

Princeton Theological Review. A learned review sup- 
porting conservative views. 

Searchlight. (Weekly) Searchlight Publishing Co., Fort 
Worth, Texas. Rev. J. Frank Norris, editor. 
Exposes modernism throughout the country, under large 

headlines. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM XXxI 


Watchman-Examiner. Philadelphia. A Baptist weekly. 
Like the Presbyterian, an untiring opponent of mod- 
ernism. 


III. GENERAL EXPRESSIONS OF MODERNISM 

American Journal of Theology. 17:509-19. O ’13. Mod- 

ern liberalism. W. W. Fenn. 
A critical discussion of liberalism by a liberal. 

Century. 106:637-40. Ag.’23. Liberalizing the fun- 
damentalist movement. Glenn Frank. 

Century. 106: 793-800. S.’23. William Jennings Bryan; 
a mind divided against itself. Glenn Frank. 

Century. 106: 957-60. O. ’23. Toward the new Refor- 
mation; a further word on the religious outlook. 
Glenn Frank. 

Century. 108:278-83. Je. ’24. Where is Protestantism 
going? Glenn Frank. 

Christian Century. Chicago. An ardently modernist 
weekly. 

Christian Century. 40: 205-6 The great bilge-water con- 


troversy. Charles P. Fagnani. 
Under a humorous analogy, blames the fundamentalists for 
starting an unnecessary controversy. 


Christian Century. 41: 358-61, 392-4. Mr. 20, 27, ’24. 
Fundamentalism, modernism, and God. 

Christian Work. 114: 426-30. Ap. 7, ’23. The divinity 
of Jesus. Harry Emerson Fosdick. 

Christian Work. 114: 588-90. My 12, ’23, Christianity 
against Jewish legalism and Scriptural literalism. 
Prof. Robert Hastings Nichols, D.D., Auburn Theo- 
logical Seminary. 

Christian Work. 115: 346-50. S. 22, ’23. The one fun- 
damental. Rev. William P. Merrill, D.D. 

Christian Work. 116:18-19. Ja. 5, ’24. The issue be- 
tween the fundamentalists and the modernists. Rev. 
Stuart L. Tyson, vice-president of the Modern 
Churchmen’s Union. 


SExtl -4 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Christian Work. 116:179-81. F. 9, ’24. The gist of 
modernism, Rev. Karl Reiland, D.D. 

Christian Work. 116: 236-8. F. 23, ’24. Christ the one 
foundation. Henry van Dyke. 

Christian Work. 116:268-70. Mr. 1, ’24. Modernism 
and Christian assurance. Rev. Robert A. Ash- 
worth, D.D. 

Christian Work. 116:302-4. Mr. 8, ’24. Loyalty to 
truth. William P. Merrill. 

Christian Work. 116:374-6. Mr. 22, ’24. Theology 
vs. religion. Rev. Charles H. Parkhurst, D.D. 
Churchman. 129 No. 13:12-14. Mr. 29, ’24. Reply to 

Rev. so: Co Hughson, .O-H:C. Reve stuartth ees 

Forum. 70:1681-97. Jl. ’23. Religion or dogma? 
Newell Dwight Hillis. 

Journal of Religion. University of Chicago. Continu- 
ing Biblical World and American Journal of The- 
ology. (Bi-monthly.) 

Journal’ of» Religion. <2:245-62. “My! 2233G@an 
Christianity welcome freedom of teaching? Gerald 
Birnie Smith. 

Journal of Religion. 2:561-76. N.’22. The modernist 
movement in the Church of England. The late Cyril 
W. Emmett of Oxford. 

Modern Churchman (Oxford). (Monthly) Organ of 
the Churchmen’s ‘Union of England. 

Outlook. 136:177-8. Ja. 30, 24. The religion of a 
liberal Christian. Henry van Dyke. 

Harvard Theological Review. A scholarly quarterly, 
corresponding to the Princeton Theological Review. 
See Il. 

World’s Work. 47:418-24. F. ’24. Protestantism at the 
crossroads. William Pierson Merrill. 


IV. THE BIBLE 
World’s Work. 47:48-56. N. ’23. Fighting for infalli- 
Diltity. Roeeelarie: 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM  xxxiii 


Christian Century. 40:235-7. F, 21, ’23. Christianity 
and the new light. The late H. Hastings Rashdall, 
Dean of Carlisle, England. 

See the fundamentalist periodicals generally. 


V. EvoLuTion 


A. For Information 


Atlantic Monthly. 133:485-92. Ap. ’24. The modern 
view of evolution. Vernon Kellogg. 

Journal of Religion 2:225-35. My. ’22. The Kentucky 
campaign against the teaching of evolution. Alonzo 
W. Fortune. 

iitetarys Digest... /01 No. §2: 31224 Yaw 323.4 Shall 
Moses or Darwin rule Minnesota schools? 

Science. n.s. 55:55-61. Ja. 20, ’22. Evolutionary faith 
and modern doubts. William Bateson. 

A scientist on the present state of evolutionary theory. 

World’s Work. 46:605-14. O.’23. “Down with evol- 
ioe ols lar: 


B. Against Evolution 
Christian Work. 114: 749-51. Je. 16, ’23. The conflict 
between evolution and Christianity. William Jen- 
nings Bryan. 
New York Times. Sunday, F. 26, ’22:section 7:1, 11. 
God and evolution. W. J. Bryan. 
See fundamentalist periodicals generally. 


C. In Favor of the Theory of Evolution 
Christian Work. 116:12-14. Ja. 5, ’24. The influence 
of science on Christianity. E. W. Barnes, canon of 
Westminster Abbey, London. 
Homiletic Review. 86: 433-7. D. ’23. Science and reli- 
gion. Prof. J. Arthur Thomson. 
Argues that the two cannot conflict. 
Homiletic Review. 87:3-7. Ja. ’24. The ascent of man. 
Prof. J. Arthur Thomson. 


A brief account of the evolutionary theory of man’s origin 
by a Christian scientist. 


XXXIV SELECTED ARTICLES 


New York Times. Sunday, Mr. 5, ’22:section 7:2. 
Reply to Mr. Bryan. Henry Fairfield Osborn. 

New York Times. Sunday, Mr. 5, ’22: section 7: 14. 
Reply to Mr. Bryan. E. G. Conklin. 

New York Times. Sunday, Mr. 12, ’22: section 7:2, 13. 
Reply to Mr. Bryan. Harry Emerson Fosdick. 
Reprinted in Fosdick and Eddy, Science and religion. 

Science. n.s. 57:630-1. Je. 1 ’23. Joint statement upon 
the relations of science and religion by religious 
leaders and scientists. 

World’s Work. 48:90-3. My. ’24. Evolution—what is 
it? LEvolutionists and churchmen needlessly at odds. 
Vernon Kellogg. 


VI. Tue VirciIn BirtH 


American Journal of Theology. 10:1-30. Ja. 06. The 
supernatural birth of Jesus: Can it be established his- 
torically? Is it essential to Christianity? B. W. 
Bacon, A. C. Zenos, Rush Rhees, B. B. Warfield. 
Prof. Warfield alone answers Yes. 

American Journal of Theology. 12: 189-210. Ap. ’08. 
The virgin birth of our Lord. Prof. Charles 
Augustus Briggs, Union Theological Seminary. 

A “higher critic” who believed in the virgin birth. 

Christian Century. 41:234-7. F. 21, ’24. A woman’s 
view of the virgin birth; a sermon. Maude Royden. 
Takes the modernist side, but very gently. 

Christian Century. 41:265-7. F. 28, ’24. A common- 
sense view of the virgin birth. William E. Barton. 
Finds the excitement unnecessary. 

Christian Work. 116: 344-5, 352. Mr. 15, 24. The 
virgin birth: the evidence in the case. Rev. Alfred 
Williams Anthony, D.D. 

Takes a careful and moderate position. 

North American Review. 205: 93-100. Ja. ’17. The vir- 
gin birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Rev. Randolph H. 
McKim, D.D. 

A defense. . 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM XXXV 


Outlook. 103:888. Ap. 26, 13. The doctrine of the 
virgin birth not essential to the preacher. 

Princeton Theological Review. 3:641-70. O. ’05; 
4:37-81. Ja. 06. The New Testament account of 
the birth of Jesus. J. Gresham Machen. 


A scholarly defense of the doctrine. 


VII. THE RESURRECTION 

American Journal of Theology. 13:169-92. Ap. ’09. 
The resurrection faith of the first disciples. Shirley 
Jackson Case. 

Constructive Quarterly. 3:159-93. Mr. ’15. The fact 
of the resurrection of Jesus. M. Meinertz. 

Hibbert Journal. 2:476-93. Ap. ’04. The resurrection 
of Jesus Christ. The Rev. Canon Hensley Henson, 
B.D. (later Bishop of Hereford and now Bishop of 


Durham). 
Finds the bodily resurrection and the empty tomb doubtful 
and unnecessary. 


VIII. Tue Posirion or MopERNISTS IN ORTHODOX CHURCHES 


New Republic. 37:161-2. Ja. 9, ’24. The parsons’ 
battle. 

World’s Work. 47:161-70. D. ’23. Is the church di- 
viding? Will the end be two churches, one liberal, 
the other fundamentalist? R. L. Hartt. 


A. Against the Right of the Modernists to Remain 


Christian Work. 114: 133-4. I. 3, ’24. Bishop Man- 
ning’s letter to Dr. Grant. 

Christian Work, - 115: 87-940. Jti2b, 23," The, creed of 
Presbyterians. Rev. Clarence Edward Macartney, 
WH BP 

Christian Work. 116:239-43. F. 23, 24. A message on 
the present situation in the church. Rt. Rev. William 
T. Manning, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of New York. Also 
in Churchman, see below. 


XxXXvi SELECTED ARTICLES 


Churchman. 129 No. 7: 16-17, 29-31. A message to the 
diocese ; the present situation in the church. Rt. Rey. 
W. T. Manning, D.D., Bishop of New York. Also 
in Christian Work, see above. 

Churchman. 129 No. 14: 12-14 Ap. 5, ’24. Modernism 
and morality. Rev. S. C. Hughson, O.H.C. 

See fundamentalist periodicals generally. 


B. For the Right of the Modernists to Remain 

Christian Work. 112:/16-22. Je. 10, °22,. Shall’ the 
fundamentalists win? Sermon preached in the First 
Presbyterian Church, New York. Harry Emerson 
Fosdick. Printed also in Christian Century, also as a 
pamphlet. 

Christian Work. 114:179-83. F. 10, ’23. Dr. Grant’s 
reply to Bishop Manning. 

Christian Work. 114:555-8. My. 5, ’23. The compre- 
hensive creed of Presbyterians. Rev. William P. Mer- 
PALE EY 

Christian Work. 115: 781-5." D»20°’23. Intellecraat 
integrity, or the equal rights of fundamentalist and 
modernist in a comprehensive church. Rev. Leighton 
Parks, D.D. Also printed as a pamphlet. 

Christian Work. 116: 84-5, 95. Ja. 19, 24. An affirma- 
tion, designed to safeguard the unity and liberty of 
the Presbyterian Church in the United States of 
America, submitted for the consideration of its minis- 
ters and people. Signed by over 150 ministers and 
professors. 


Christian Work. 116: 150-2. F. 2, ’24. The faith and 
the creeds; letter from the faculty of the Episcopal 
Theological School at Cambridge (Mass.). Also in 
Churchman. 129 No. 3:10-11. Ja. 19, 24. 

Churchman. 129 No. 2:10-13. Ja. 12, ’24. Liberty 
in faith. Rev. W. Russell Bowie. Sermon preached 
in Grace Church, New York. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM  xxxvit 


Churchman. 129 No. 14:12-14. Ap. 5, ’24. Reply to 
Rey. S. C. Hughson, O.H.C. Rev. Francis A. Henry. 
DD: 

Independent. 112:5. Ja. 5, ’24. Religious tolerance. 

New Republic. 38: 35-9. Mr. 5, ’24. Conscience and the 
bishops; a historic step. Prof. Dickinson S. Miller, 
Ines so) ne Churchman, 129 Nowhis 10-12 Mr <15) 
24. 

Outlook. 136:10-11. Ja. 2, ’24. An exclusive gospel. 
Krnest H. Abbott. 

Parish News, Church of the Holy Trinity, Brooklyn, 
avec On Oe 1a. c+ ee eentweto the: bishops: 
pastoral letter. Rev. John Howard Melish. 

Parish News, Church of the Holy Trinity, Brooklyn, 
Nie 25:0.. ja, 24) A. statement, by) the; Modern 
Churchmen’s Union. 

Presbyterian. 94 No. 3:6-9. Ja.17,’24. An affirmation 
of one hundred and fifty liberal ministers. 

Contains both the text of the Affirmation and a_ hostile 
criticism of it. 

World’s Work. 45: 303-10. Ja. ’23. How I lost my job 
aide preacner, |. .°M.. Buckner: 

World’s Wlork. 45: 509-13. Mr. ’23. Freedom in school 
eagcuucen,. Woli. Ps Baince: 


cy 
a 
oe 
se 
# 


5 
’ Z 
: 

2 

*. 

if 

a 

1’ 


. 
= 


aN ee oe 





INTRODUCTION 


The controversy between the Fundamentalists and the 
Modernists in the Protestant churches presents certain 
difficulties for the expounder, mainly because the two 
parties to the debate are not clearly defined. Not all theo- 
logical conservatism can properly be called fundamen- 
talism. There are those who for themselves hold all the 
old doctrines, but who do not have the belligerent attitude 
toward other opinions which marks the group who call 
themselves Fundamentalists. There is also a large class 
of Christian leaders who go alittle way with the Modern- 
ists on questions like the nature and proper use of the Bi- 
ble, who feel unable to take beliefs like the second coming 
of Christ with quite the old literalness, who might even 
admit a measure of errancy in the Bible in unimportant 
matters, but who stand firm on the old doctrines of the 
person and work of Christ. It is doubtful whether these 
can properly be called Modernists. The same men, for 
instance, may be found on the modernist side when it 
comes to belief in evolution, but on the conservative side 
when the question is the virgin birth or the bodily resur- 
rection of Christ. The question is also complicated by 
the fact that many of the Fundamentalists do not repre- 
sent the whole group of conservatives in that they are 
premillennarians (or premillennialists). This is a formid- 
able word, but its meaning can be quite easily made 
clear. There is much mention in the New Testament of 
a second coming of Christ to this world, with manifes- 
tations of glory in contrast to the lowliness of his first 
appearance. In the last book of the New Testament, the 
Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John, there is also refer- 
ence to a future period of a thousand years when Christ 
shall reign on this earth and the powers of evil shall be 


2 SELECTED “ARTICLES 


bound. Now, orthodox interpreters of the Bible have 
long been divided as to whether the second coming of 
Christ is to be at the beginning of this millennium, or 
whether the millennium is to be the conclusion of the 
gradually developing Kingdom of God in this world, and 
the visible, glorious coming of Christ is to come at its 
end to inaugurate the final judgment. It may seem that 
this is an unimportant difference of opinion, but it has 
important consequences. The post-millennarian, believ- 
ing that Christ is to come visibly after the thousand years 
looks for the reign of righteousness to come by degrees, 
and is, therefore, likely to be intensely interested in mak- 
ing the present world better. Every step in social im- 
provement is to him a step in the coming of the Kingdom 
of God. The post-millennarian is also likely to take the 
second coming of Christ somewhat figuratively. The 
premillennarian, on the other hand, since he expects 
Christ to come at the beginning of the reign of righteous- 
ness on the earth, has little interest in programs of social 
betterment. The Kingdom of God will not come by any 
human efforts, but only by the miraculous operation of 
Christ himself. The present order, therefore, is not 
something that can be improved according to God’s pur- 
pose. It is destined to be done away. The mission of the 
church, then, is not to make the world better, but to save 
individuals out of the present evil world for that other 
world which Christ may any day come to inaugurate. 
Many premillennialists feel justified, on the basis of 
Scripture predictions, in mapping out detailed programs 
of the events of the end. All this goes beyond the limits 
of ordinary theological conservatism, and therefore all 
conservatives must not be held responsible for the utter- 
ances of some of the Fundamentalists. 

The term “modernism” is a correct designation. It is 
true that some of the beliefs rejected by the Modernists 
have been doubted long before, even in the early centuries 
of Christian history. But the basis of the present 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 3 


changes in theology, however much some of them may 
resemble ancient denials, is what is known as the “modern 
view of the world.” Foremost among the forces that 
have produced this is modern science, which has given us | 
the concept of “laws of nature,’ and regards the whole 
world as an unvarying system of cause and effect. Prob- 
ably the most revolutionary of all scientific discoveries, 
in its effect on religious thought, has been the Copernican 
astronomy, which showed that the earth is not the center 
of the universe. This has made enormous difficulties for 
any literal acceptance of the Biblical representations of 
heaven, earth, and hell. The concept of “laws of nature” 
has created a state of mind in which any miracle-story 
has to fight for belief against an atmosphere of incredu- 
lity. The theory of evolution, first given an explanation 
as to its method by Darwin in 1859, but subsequently 
modified in many details, presents a view of man’s origin 
entirely different from the scheme of special creation, 
original innocence, and fall, presented in traditional the- 
ology and based on the declarations of the Bible. The 
modern “historical method” of study goes on the assump- 
tion that everything that is, has come to be through a 
process; there is a tendency, therefore, to seek the ex- 
planation of everything, even the Hebrew and Christian 
religions, by a natural development out of earlier forms, 
which profoundly affects, if it does not destroy, the tradi- 
tional doctrine of special revelation. The study of other 
religions has disclosed striking parallels to many beliefs 
once thought peculiar to Judaism and Christianity; and 
the question inevitably arises, whether it can be that the 
Biblical stories, like their parallels in other religions, are 
to some extent legendary or mythological. Finally, in 
the nineteenth century a school of literary critics arose 
whose studies of the Bible have led to revolutionary re- 
sults. Many books of the Bible have been declared, on 
internal evidence, to have a much later origin than for- 
merly supposed, to have other than their supposed 


j SELECTED ARTICLES 


authors, to be compiled out of earlier and sometimes in- 
consistent documents, and consequently to be not 
throughout reliable history. All these tendencies are 
essentially modern, and therefore the theology that is af- 
fected by them is properly called “modernism.” 

To all these modern tendencies there has been, in 
Christian theology, a twofold attitude. On the one hand, 
there are those who regard the new ways of thinking as 
discoveries of truth, and hold that Christian belief must 
be adjusted to them. “This is possible, the Modernists 
hold, for the new ways of regarding nature and history 
do not necessarily mean the elimination of the activity of 
God. When the scientist denies God he is no longer a 
scientist, but a philosopher, and the Christian can refuse 
to follow him though accepting his scientific facts. The 
modern views modify the outer forms of Christian be- 
liefs, but leave their inner substance unharmed, or even 
strengthened. 

The modernist theology has, of course, many vari- 
eties. Some insist that there is no one theology called 
“modernism.” Some religious liberals retain almost the 
whole system of doctrines in a qualified form. Others 
are ready for a drastic discarding of the whole traditional 
“religion about Jesus” in favor of a return to “the reli- 
gion of Jesus,’ which, it is believed, is shown by a criti- 
cal study of the earliest traditions to have been essentially 
“the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man,” 
with a “plan of salvation” as simple as the parable of the 
Prodigal Son. Most Modernists protest that they are not 
Unitarians. (The Unitarians have for long frankly re- 
garded Jesus as a human teacher and leader, not in any 
unique sense divine). In some cases the distinction is 
real; in others, it can perhaps be traced but is very fine 
and quite unimportant. Many persons were amused at 
the embarrassment of certain Modernists in New York 
when a Unitarian minister came forward as a defender 
of modernism against a leading Fundamentalist. But al) 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 5 


Modernists agree upon the necessity of revising religious 
beliefs in the light of the new knowledge. 

On the other hand, other theologians have regarded 
the whole system of modern ideas as destructive of Chris- 
tianity. It is not new facts, they believe, to which the 
Modernists have yielded, but an atheistic philosophy. It 
is a modern prejudice against the miraculous and the su- 
pernatural, which, if the Modernist were but clear- 
sighted enough to see it, really springs from a disbe- 
lief in God. The Copernican astronomy, to be sure, has 
long since been assimilated and the Bible interpreted in 
accordance with it. But evolution is denied as unproved, 
a mere atheistic guess. The whole critical reconstruction 
of Biblical history is rejected as untenable, and the Bible 
set forth over against modernism as wholly without error. 
Sometimes modernism is said to spring from a moral 
fault. The desire to revise theology is said to issue from 
man’s unwillingness to think of himself as a lost sinner 
who needs a Divine Savior. 


THE BIBLE 


Most important of all, in this discussion, is the ques- 
tion of the nature and proper use of the Bible. For cen- 
turies it has been commonly assumed by Christians that 
the Bible is in such a sense a revelation from God,—that 
its authors were in such a way inspired—that whatever 
the Bible declares is to be accepted as truth without ques- 
tion. The Reformers of the sixteenth century showed a 
certain tendency at first to deal more boldly with the Bi- 
ble, but the necessities of controversy with the Roman 
Church, which they had left, soon led the Protestants to 
develop an even stricter doctrine of Biblical. inspiration 
than was necessary in Catholicism. When, as is often 
pointed out, the authors of the Westminster Confession 
of 1647 failed to state explicity that the Bible is without 
error, the reason is probably that this was so completely 


6 SELECTED °ARPICUES 


taken for granted that it occurred to none of them to de- 
clarerits 

Now, even many moderate conservatives will agree 
that the theory of verbal inspiration is not tenable. The 
credibility of the Bible, such men hold, is not affected by 
trifling discrepancies of detail or occasional misquota- 
tions. Still other conservatives give up entirely the at- 
tempt to draw authoritative statements from the Bible 
on any subject but religion and ethics. These, they say, 
are the true subject matter of the Bible, and it is in these 
fields only that the Bible is an authoritative revelation. 

But the genuine Modernist goes further than this. 
He maintains that the Bible does not teach a single, har- 
monious system of doctrine, but contains various theolo- 
gies of unequal value. The primitive representations of 
the early Hebrew traditions, the ethical religion of the 
great prophets, the religion of temple and sacrifice, the 
teachings of Jesus, the elaborate theology of Paul, the 
Christ shown in the fourth Gospel, the peculiar theology 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the visions of the Apoca- 
lypse of John—it is impossible, say the Modernists, to 
combine all these into one system of doctrine :without 
doing violence to some of them. The Bible is a varied 
literature issuing out of the long development of Hebrew 
and Christian religion. It is not adapted to be a final au- 
thority for our belief, in the sense that all its declarations 
must be accepted without question; but its true value is 
found when it is used like any other literature, for what- 
ever inspiration and guidance its various parts are found 
actually to contain. The Bible becomes a more wonder- 
ful book when so used, the Modernist claims. Old 
attacks like that of Robert Ingersoll lose all point the mo- 
ment the Christian is not required to defend everything 
said about God in the Old Testament. No longer is it 
necessary to expend labor upon harmonizing the hope- 
lessly discordant, in the interest of an artificial theory of 
Biblical inerrancy. On the contrary, the Bible as rear- 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM a 


ranged by modern literary and historical criticism pre- 
sents an impressive picture of the development of religion 
from naive, grotesque, and barbarous forms up to the 
matchless teachings and life of Jesus, a picture so impres- 
sive as to call forth a faith in a self-revealing God within 
the process. 

To all this the Fundamentalist replies, that the Bible 
does not gain from the new view, but on the contrary 
loses all the value that Christian faith found in it on the 
old view. As represented by the Modernists, it is sim- 
ply a human literature. Instead of a message from God 
to men, it is only men’s thoughts about God. In a word, 
the Bible is no more a revelation. Since the Bible is de- 
clared to contain error, it is only our fallible judgment 
which decides what in the Bible is true. But what re- 
ligion needs is an infallible message from God, to which 
our human reason and conscience shall be subject, which 
may on occasion contradict human ideas. If it is tc have 
any value, therefore, the Bible must be supernaturally in- 
spired and infallible. The true Fundamentalist draws the 
full conclusions from this principle. It is not enough that 
the thoughts of the Bible be divinely given, for thoughts 
are communicated in words, and an error in a word 
might conceal the Divine thought. Therefore it must be 
that the very words of Scripture are just what God in- 
tended the writers to use. 

Being thus convinced of the antecedent necessity of 
an infallible Bible, the Fundamentalist then examines the 
evidence which the Modernist offers against it, and finds 
that the Modernist’s case is not proved. The supposed 
discoveries of the literary critic are declared to be largely 
subjective. The critic, it is charged, rewrites the sacred 
history according to a preconceived theory of the evolu- 
tion of religions. He is unwilling to admit the possibility 
of a supernatural revelation and of miraculous events ac- 
companying it, and therefore must recast the story so as 
to remove these features. The inconsistencies and varia- 


8 SELECTED ARTICLES 


tions of style, on the ground of which the critic divides 
books of the Bible into supposed earlier documents, are 
declared to be mostly imaginary. Where actual discrep- 
ancies occur, these are disposed of by an interpretation 
which harmonizes them, or the Fundamentalist waits for 
further light which shall remove them. There is always 
the possibility that the difficulty is due to an error in 
transcribing the manuscripts, and therefore it is the orig- 
imal documents only for which verbal inerrancy. is 
claimed. These are, to be sure, lost, but a comparison of 
manuscripts enables us to reconstruct the original text 
with a considerable degree of accuracy. 


EVOLUTION 


The inerrancy of the Bible comes conspicuously into 
question in connection with the creation of the world and 
the origin of man. The modern theory of evolution is in 
striking contrast with the Biblical representation of a 
series of special acts of creation. More serious still is 
the contrast between the evolutionary view of the origin 
of society, morals, and religion, and the Biblical story, 
according to which the present state of man is to be ex- 
plained by a fall of our first parents from the state of 
original innocence in which they had been created. 

Modernists, and many who are otherwise theologic- 
ally conservative, give general assent to the theory of 
evolution. The argument for it they usually leave to the 
biologists, geologists, and palaeontologists, discussing on 
their own part rather the question how evolution affects 
theology. That it does modify the traditional system of 
doctrines is freely admitted, but the Modernist argues 
that the story of evolution furnishes a new evidence for 
the existence of God, better than the old argument from 
design. Evolution is said to give relief in many old dif- 
ficulties. It sheds a little light upon the mystery of evil, 
in that it represents the world as still in process of com- 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 9 


pletion. It relieves the difficulty caused by the atrocities 
alleged to have been commanded by God in the Old 
Testament; for these are seen to have been the prompt- 
ings of an undeveloped moral sense. 

For the Fundamentalist, the theory of evolution tends 
to become the great enemy. First of all, it contradicts 
the Bible. It is not merely that it contradicts the first 
chapters of Genesis; but it is felt to destroy that whole 
system of doctrine built on the fall of Adam and Eve, a 
system which the Fundamentalist holds to be taught 
throughout the Bible. No fall, no real problem of sin; 
no sin, no need of salvation; no salvation, no Divine 
Redeemer; and so no Christianity. The doctrine of the 
animal ancestry of man is held to be degrading, to make 
man not truly a child of God. If sin is only the remains 
of the ape and tiger in us, it seems less serious, certainly 
less guilty. So with might and main the Fundamentalist 
bestirs himself to show that evolution is unproved. 


THe VIRGIN BIRTH AND THE BODILY RESURRECTION 


In the present controversy not much is being said 
about miracles in general. The Modernist naturally is 
inhospitable to miracles. For the Fundamentalist, this 
whole question is already settled by his doctrine about 
the Bible. The Bible relates that a series of marvelous 
events took place in Egypt, Palestine, and elsewhere, and 
for him who holds the Bible to be reliable throughout, 
there is nothing more to say. The controversy centers 
rather in two great miracles, viz., the alleged fact that 
Jesus was miraculously conceived by the Virgin Mary, 
and had no human father, and the alleged fact that Jesus 
rose from the dead in the same body in which he was 
crucified, and that his tomb was found empty. At this 
point the strict Fundamentalist is joined by many who 
do not hold his view of Biblical inerrancy. Many a 
Christian who finds it necessary to treat the book of 
Jonah as an allegory, and who is not quite sure about 
the conversational powers of Balaam’s ass, grows 


IO 


SELECTED ARTICLES 


frightened when it is proposed to treat these supposed 
events in the life of Jesus, the virgin birth and the bodily 
resurrection, as legendary. For these two miracles seem 
far more closely connected with the very substance of 
Christianity than any Old Testament miracle, or even 
than any other miracle related of Jesus. 

If the virgin birth should prove to be a legend, there 
seems to be no escape from a considerable modification 
of the traditional doctrine about Christ. Although the 
Modernists always protest that the precise manner of the 
birth of Jesus makes no difference, the conservative ob- 
serves that practically without exception, those who re- 
ject the miraculous conception of Jesus no longer think 
of him as a pre-existent divine being who “took on 
human nature” from his mother, but instead regard him 
as a man in whom God dwelt in a peculiar degree. And 
this, the conservative feels, no matter how much the 
Modernist may speak of the “divinity” or even “deity” 
of Christ, is nothing but Unitarianism. 

At the risk of seeming to take sides, one argument 
of the Fundamentalists must be stigmatized as unfounded 
and unfair. Orthodox hearers are often stirred to a 
high pitch of indignation by the charge that if one does 
not believe in the virgin birth he must believe that Jesus 
was “the illegitimate son of an impure woman.” ‘The 
whole vocabulary of abusive Anglo-Saxon terms is used 
in enforcing this sensational charge. Nothing could be 
more absurd or inexcusable. Nobody could arrive at the 
supposition that Jesus was born out of wedlock except 
on the basis of those very birth-stories which the Mod- 
ernist takes to be legendary. But if the birth-stories are 
legendary, then we have no historical account of the 
birth of Jesus; and the only supposition for which there 
is any ground in that case, is that Jesus was born in 
marriage, at Nazareth. 

As noted above, the Modernist claims that nothing 
vital is bound up with this story. The reasons which 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 11 


move him to doubt it will be seen in the extracts given 
in Part IV of this book. 

If the story of the bodily resurrection of Jesus from 
the tomb be doubted, the conservative Christian feels 
deprived of the supreme sign given by God of the truth 
of Christianity. He says with the Apostle Paul, “If 
Christ be not risen, then is our faith vain.” Christianity 
seems then to be founded upon a delusion. The Mod- 
ernist, on the other hand, is unable to understand this 
insistence upon the bodily resurrection. He believes in 
the continued life of Jesus as a present power in the 
lives of his followers, and often believes that the resur- 
rection faith of the first disciples was not subjective but 
actually caused by physical visions produced by the spirit 
of Jesus after his death. But he cannot see that anything 
depends on what became of the body of Jesus. He usu- 
ally finds that the earlier resurrection faith, as seen in 
Paul, requires no bodily resurrection, but that the stories 
in the Gospels are a later and more materialized form of 
the tradition. 


SHOULD THE MOopERNISTS LEAVE 
THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES? 


This is a separate question, apart from that of the 
rightness or wrongness of the Modernists’ views. In 
the Congregational churches, where there are no creedal 
requirements of any kind, liberal views have long been 
welcomed. In the Baptist churches, on the other hand, 
where theoretically there is the same liberty, one finds a 
strong determination on the part of the Fundamentalist 
group to drive the Modernists out. The problem be- 
comes peculiarly acute in churches which require of their 
ministers assent to a formulated creed, e.g., the Pres- 
byterian Church which professes allegiance to the West- 
minster Confession of 1647, and the Church of England 
and its allied Protestant Episcopal Church in America, 
which not only require assent to the Apostles’ and Nicene 


i2 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Creeds, but in every regular service of worship require 
the reciting of one of them. By what right does a Mod- 
ernist remain a Presbyterian minister when any informed 
person can point out the discrepancies between his views 
and the statements of the Confession? And how can an 
honest man Sunday after Sunday, in the presence of a 
congregation and of God, recite creeds which say “I be- 
lieve” when in fact he does not believe? 

The Fundamentalist has the advantage here. His 
case can be put in a few words, and carries with it an 
air of obviousness which is very difficult to escape. The 
Unitarian, long a lonely defender of heretical views, fre- 
quently joins in accusations against the Modernist who 
will not come out of the orthodox church and join his 
true allies. The Modernist is thus under the charge of 
dishonesty from both sides. 

His case is not so easy to state in a few words. He 
recognizes that he is technically in a false position. But 
he feels himself in a deeper sense in such a vital connec- 
tion with the tradition of his church, that to step out 
would be even more false to his principles than to stay 
in. He believes that the process of subdividing Protes- 
tantism according to variations in doctrine must come to 
an end. He believes himself in possession of new truth 
to which the church should adjust itself. The position 
of the strict conformist, carried to its logical end, would 
mean that at the appearance of each new truth or fresh 
insight not in accordance with previous formulations, all 
existing churches would have to disband and reorganize 
with fresh doctrinal standards, which is absurd. The 
solution for the time being is, that it be generally under- 
stood that assent to the creeds means only assent to the 
central truth contained in them, or to the Christian reli- 
gion in general; and as soon as it becomes possible, the 
churches shall either formulate new doctrinal standards, 
or keep the old creeds but disavow servitude to them. 
The Modernist, then, usually admits that he is technically 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 13 


out of accord with the doctrines of his church, but holds 
that it is practically necessary that such deviation from 
orthodoxy be tolerated. The church must not be allowed 
to destroy itself by a literal adherence to the formula- 
tions of the past. For the present, the apparent false 
position must be persisted in as the lesser of two evils. 

In the fight against “modern unbelief,” old differ- 
ences are for the time forgotten. Baptists and Presby- 
terians stand side by side in the effort to rid their 
churches of the common enemy. In this strange alliance 
the Episcopal bishops and the tent evangelists find them- 
selves together. Scholarly conservatives of Princeton 
Theological Seminary align themselves with men from 
the Bible Institutes whose audacious charting of future 
events they regard as folly. And on the other side, a 
moderately conservative theologian like Henry van Dyke 
finds himself under like condemnation with Professor 
Kirsopp Lake and the late George Burman Foster. At 
the time of writing, the controversy shows no signs of 
subsiding. The annual ecclesiastical assemblies of 1922 
and 1923 brought no victory for either side, and it is still 
possible that those are right who predict a transverse 
division of Protestantism into two great churches, one 
orthodox and the other liberal. 


E. C. VANDERLAAN 
July, 1924 






é 
‘ > 


af Pe aah ~heo 
* “—- 


pe rk, Re 


A oe 


ay! 


re ee 


Paaae 
© 


§. 
<.) 


cates 
we = 
ws 
cae ot 
¥ 


_ 
a 


. 


Part I 
GENERAL DISCUSSION 






a 


Pe ie 
Eee 


vip ts 


- 
o 
| ‘ 4 = 
4 
i Dn 
‘4 A 
Te : 
; 4 
A oe Ss 
7 ‘ 
; 
~ { 
’ 
. 
ae 
; 
. 
. 


ee 
4 
As 
we .. 
. 
i = b 
pn * je 


A. HISTORIC AND RECENT CREEDS 
THE APOSTLES’ CREED! 


I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of 
heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ His only Son, our 
Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of 
the Virgin Mary; Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was 
crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell [or, 
the place of departed spirits]; The third day He rose 
again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, And 
sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty ; 
From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the 
dead. 

I believe in the Holy Ghost; The Holy Catholic 
Church, the Communion of Saints; The Forgiveness of 
sins; The Resurrection of the body; And the Life ever- 
lasting. Amen. 


bHE ONIGENEHECREHD 2 


We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker 
of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invis- 
ible; 

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten 
Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, 
God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, be- 
gotten, not made, being of one substance with the 
Father; by Whom all things were made; Who, for us 
men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and 
was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, 


1It is admitted by all that neither of these two ancient creeds is 
accurately named. The Apostles did not write the former, nor is the 
latter the creed adopted by the Council of Nicaea, though it closely re- 
sembles it. 


18 SELECTED ARTICLES 


and was made man; and was crucified also for us under 
Pontius Pilate. He suffered, and was buried; and the 
third day He rose again according to the Scriptures ; and 
ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of 
the Father. And He shall come again, with glory, to 
judge both the quick and the dead; Whose kingdom shall 
have no end. 

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, 
Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who 
with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and 
glorified, Who spake by the Prophets. 

And one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We 
acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and 
we look for the Resurrection of the dead, and the Life 
of the world to come. Amen. 


SERUBC LED) DASOA GH oy hive ee 
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION? 


CHAPTER I 
Or THE Hory ScRIPTURE 


IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which 
it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon 
the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon 
God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and there- 
fore it is to be received, because it is the word of God. 

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony 
of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the 
holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the 
efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the 
consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which 
is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes 
of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other 
incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection 
thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evi- 

1From Philip Schaff. The Creeds of Christendom. Vol. III, p. 600. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 19 


dence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, 
our full persuasion and assurance a the infallible truth, 
and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work 
of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the 
Word in our hearts. 

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew ... and the 
New Testament in Greek . . . , being immediately in- 
spired by God, and by his singular care and providence 
kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in 
all controversies of religion the Church is finally to ap- 
pealetnto then... ... 

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scrip- 
ture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is 
a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture 
(which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched 
and known by other places that speak more clearly. 

X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies 
of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of coun- 
cils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and 
private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence 
we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speak- 
ing in the Scripture. 


CHAPTER VI 


Or THE FALL oF MAN, OF SIN, AND OF 
THE PUNISHMENT THEREOF 


I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtility 
and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden 
fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his 
wise and holy counsel, to Bor having purposed to 
order it to his own glory. 

II. By this sin they fell from their original right- 
eousness and communion with God, and so became dead 
in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of 


soul and body. 


20 SELECTED ARTICLES 


III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of 
this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and cor- 
rupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descending 
from them by ordinary generation. 

IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are 
utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all 
good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all act- 
ual transgressions. 


CHAPTER VIII 


Or Curist, THE MEDIATOR 


II. The Son of God, the second person in the Trin- 
ity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and 
equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was 
come, take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential 
properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without 
sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in 
the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So 
that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the God- 
head and the manhood, were inseparably joined to- 
gether in one person, without conversion, composition, 
or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, 
yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man. 

IV. This office of a mediator and surety the Lord 
Jesus did most willingly undertake, which, that he might 
discharge, he was made under the law, and did perfectly 
fulfil it; endured most grievous torments immediately 
in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body; was 
crucified and died; was buried, and remained under the 
power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third 
day he arose from the dead, with the same body in which 
he suffered; with which also he ascended into heaven, 
and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father, making 
intercession; and shall return to judge men and angels 


at the end of the world, 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 21 


THE FAMOUS “FIVE POINTS”! 


Furthermore, the General Assembly calls the atten- 
tion of the Presbyteries to the deliverance of the General 
Assembly of 1910, which deliverance is hereby affirmed 
and which is as follows: 

1. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God 
and our standards that the Holy Spirit did so inspire, 
guide and move the writers of the Holy Scripture as to 
keep them from error. 

2. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God 
and our standards that our Lord Jesus Christ was born 
of the Virgin Mary. 

3. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God 
and our standards that Christ offered up Himself a sac- 
rifice to satisfy divine justice and to reconcile us to God. 

4. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God 
and of our standards concerning our Lord Jesus Christ 
that on the third day He rose again from the dead with 
the same body with which He suffered, with which also 
He ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth at the right 
hand of His Father, making intercession. 

5. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God 
as the supreme standard of our faith that our Lord Jesus 
showed His power and love by working mighty miracles. 
This working was not contrary to nature, but superior 


to it. 


THE CREED OF THE BAPTIST BIBLE UNION® 


Whereas: The Northern Baptist Convention, in its 
1922 session, held at Indianapolis, officially declared the 
New Testament to be the all-sufficient ground of its 


faith, and 


1 Readopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 
the United States of America, in 1923. 
2 Christian Work. 116:702. May 31, 1924. 


22 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Whereas: There is a wide difference of opinion 
among our Baptist people, as to what the New Testa- 
ment does teach, 

Therefore: Be it resolved that the Bible teaches, and 
we believe, 

1. OF THE SCRIPTURES 


That the Bible was written by men supernaturally 
inspired; that it has truth without any admixture of 
error for its matter; that, as originally written, it is both 
scientifically and historically true and correct; and there- 
fore is, and shall remain to the end of the age, the only 
complete and final revelation of the will of God to man; 
the true center of Christian union and the supreme 
standard by which all human conduct, creeds and opin- 
ions should be tried. 


2. OF THE TRUE Gop 


That there is one, and only one, living and true God, 
an infinite, intelligent Spirit, whose name is Jehovah, the 
maker and supreme ruler of heaven and earth; inex- 
pressibly glorious in holiness, and worthy of all possible 
honor, confidence and love; that in the unity of the God- 
head there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost, equal in every divine perfection, and 
executing distinct but harmonious offices in the great 


work of redemption. 


3. OF THE CREATION 


That the Genesis account of creation is to be accepted 
literally, and not allegorically or figuratively; that man 
was created directly in God’s own image and after His 
own likeness; that man’s creation was not a matter of 
evolution or evolutionary change of species, or develop- 

rent through interminable periods of time from lower 
to higher forms; that both animal and vegetable life was 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 23 


made directly, and God’s established law was they should 
bring forth only “after their kind.” 


4. OF THE ViRGIN BirRTH 


That Jesus Christ was begotten of the Holy Ghost in 
a miraculous manner; born of Mary, a virgin, as no 
other man was ever born or can be born of woman, and 
that He is both the Son of God, and God, the Son. 


5. OF tHE ATONEMENT FOR SIN 


That the salvation of sinners is wholly of grace; 
through the Mediatorial offices of the Son of God, who 
by the appointment of the Father freely took upon Him 
our nature, yet without sin, honored the divine law by 
His personal obedience, and by His death made a full 
and vicarious atonement for our sins; that his atonement 
consisted not in setting us an example by His death as 
a martyr, but was the voluntary substitution of Himself 
in the sinner’s place, the Just dying for the unjust, Christ, 
the Lord, bearing our sins in His own body on the tree; 
that having risen from the dead, He is now enthroned 
in Heaven and uniting in His wonderful person the ten- 
derest sympathies with divine perfection. He is every 
way qualified to be a suitable, a compassionate and an 
ali-sufficient Saviour. 


6. OF GRACE IN THE NEW CREATION 


That in order to be saved, sinners must be born 
again; that the new birth is a new creation in Christ 
Jesus; that it is instantaneous and not a process; that 
in the new birth the one dead in trespass and in sins is 
made a partaker of the divine nature and receives 
eternal life, the free gift of God; that the new creation 
is brought about in a manner above our comprehension, 
not by culture, not by character, nor by the will of man, 


24 SELECTED ARTICLES 


but wholly and solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in 
connection with the divine truth so as to secure our 
voluntary obedience to the Gospel; that its proper evi- 
dence appears in the holy fruits of repentance and faith 
and newness of life. 


7. OF THE CHURCH 


That a church of Christ is a congregation of im- 
mersed believers associated by a covenant of faith and 
fellowship of the Gospel, observing the ordinances of 
Christ; governed by His laws; and exercising the gifts, 
rights and privileges invested in them by His word; that 
its officers of ordination are pastors, elders and deacons, 
whose qualifications, claims and duties are clearly de- 
fined in the Scriptures. We believe the true mission of 
the church is found in the great commission; first, to 
make individual disciples; second,to build up the 
church; third, to teach and instruct as He has com- 
manded. We do not believe in the reversal of this order ; 
we hold that the local church has the absolute right of 
self-government, free from interference of any hier- 
archy of individuals or organizations; and that the one 
and only superintendent is Christ, through the Holy 
Spirit; that it 1s scriptural for true churches to cooperate 
with each other in contending for the faith and for the 
furtherance of the Gospel; that every church is the sole 
and only judge of the measure and method of its coop- 
eration; on all matters of membership, of policy, of gov- 
ernment, of discipline, of benevolence, the will of the 
local church is final. 


8. OF THE ORDINANCES 


That Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of 
a believer into the name of the Father, the Son and the 
Holy Ghost; to show forth in a solemn and beautiful 
emblem our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 25 


Saviour, with its effect in our death to sin, and resur- 
rection to a new life; that it is pre-requisite to the privi- 
leges of a church relation and to the Lord’s Supper; in 
which the members of the church, by the sacred use 
of bread and wine are to commemorate together the 
dying love of Christ; preceded always by solemn self- 
examination. 


9. OF THE RESURRECTION AND OF THE 
SECOND COMING OF CHRIST 


We believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ; that 
He ascended to the right hand of the majesty on high; 
that as our high priest He is Mediator between God and 
man; and that He will return “in like manner’ literally, 
personally and bodily, back to the earth. 


PART OF THE OFFICIAL CREED OF A 
DENOMINATIONAL COLLEGE? 


We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New 
Testaments as verbally inspired by God, and inerrant in 
the original writings; and that there is no difference in 
kind in the inspiration of the books of the Bible. We 
reject the notion that just the thoughts and not the words 
of Bible writers are inspired of God, and believe that 
the Scriptures are of supreme and final authority in faith 
and practice. 

We believe in the immediate creation of man by Al- 
mighty God, rather than in his mediate creation. We 
therefore utterly reject the anti-Biblical and unscientific 
doctrine of evolution, whether it be theistic, atheistic, 
materialistic, or any other form whatever. 

We believe that the first and second chapters of Gen- 
esis, which include the account of the making of Eve 
from Adam’s rib, are historically correct and scientific- 


1 Quoted by A. Wakefield Slaten, in Academic Freedom, Fundamentalism, 
and the Dotted Line. Educational Review. 63: 74-7. February, 1923. 


26 SELECTED ARTICLES 


ally accurate. We reject utterly the mythical interpreta- 
tion of these chapters. 

We believe that Adam and Eve were the first created 
human beings in the entire history of the world, and 
that all nations, kindred and tongues had their origin in 
their loins. 

We believe in the resurrection of the crucified body 
of our Lord, in His ascension into heaven, and in His 
present life there for us as High Priest and Advocate, 
and in the personal return of our Lord and Saviour, 
Jesus Christ, to earth. 

We believe in the bodily resurrection of the just and 
the unjust, the everlasting blessedness of the saved, and 
the everlasting conscious punishment of the lost. 


PELE KANSAS Clave GR ilps Waele i 
CONGREGATIONAL SES 


We believe in God the Father, infinite in wisdom, 
goodness and love; and in Jesus Christ, His Son, our 
Lord and Saviour, who for us and our salvation lived 
and died and rose again and liveth evermore; and in the 
Holy Spirit, who taketh of the things of Christ and re- 
vealeth them to us, renewing, comforting and inspiring 
the souls of men. We are united in striving to know the 
will of God as taught in the Holy Scriptures, and in our 
purpose to walk in the ways of the Lord, made known or 
to be made known to us. We hold it to be the mission 
of the Church of Christ to proclaim the gospel to all 
mankind, exalting the worship of the one true God, and 
laboring for the progress of knowledge, the promotion 
of justice, the reign of peace and the realization of 
human brotherhood. Depending, as did our fathers, 


1 ed by the National Council of the Congregational Churches at 
i tant A Ouicber 25, 1913. From Barton, Congregational Creeds and 
Covenants, p. 204-5. This creed is interesting in that, while it seeks to 
preserve a general allegiance to the Christian tradition, it further gives 
expression to the newer social ideals which are a vital part of the re- 


ligion of many modern Christians, 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 27 


upon the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead 
us into all truth, we work and pray for the transforma- 
tion of the world into the kingdom of God; and we look 
with faith for the triumph of righteousness and the life 
everlasting. 





















ia ie. ington ase ne 


me ty ) Pini rsh bs 
ae rae). tht, Ae Mouton Merk. 

Sab a ee ae min hte eo 

MP Oth te Bige. Bee epi) fn : ia RTD, eo va . 


i] : é 


iyi ; ELI e & maiio+s 






a 
¢ 
« vi 










; > 4 al 
‘ s Au 
. (Bey as Pal al 1 ai sé 2. (‘= i pee A i 


* er ; f 
- hf aie Gir, as ieierer oe 
( a 
fh. ; “ay oy hehe ent i aay 
mY ee Fie oe & - i . 


« oer my ee ‘aA } 


ms ‘ > @ 
: ; f 
rf . : 
so ¢ Ty ‘ . 
fi y j ‘ 
; ne = ‘ 
‘ ar) ; ts Ms 





ie a Mal Ree, ee 


B. BRIEF STATEMENTS ABOUT 
THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY’ 


Dr. Herspert L. WILLETT, OF CHICAGO 

The fundamental doctrines of the Church are not the 
verbal inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth of Jesus, 
any particular theory of the atonement, or a literalistic 
formula of the return of the Lord. These might all be 
true and yet not essential. The basic truths of the Chris- 
tian faith are the reality and fatherhood of God, the 
divinity and saviorhood of Jesus, the efficacy of the 
atonement for sin, the vitality and value of the church 
as the instrument for the accomplishment of the divine 
purpose in the world, and the life eternal. And these all 
go back to the central belief in the Master Himself, the 
one requisite article in the primal creed of the Church. 


Dr. JoHN ARCHIBALD MACCALLUM, OF PHILADELPHIA 

The Church must seek the truth and teach that the 
one fundamental of Christianity is a Christ-like mind 
and heart. They alone do honor to Christ who have 
that mind. He calls upon men to follow Him, not to 
define Him. They honor the Bible who seek to live in 
accordance with its precepts rather than those who make 
claims for it that it never makes for itself. The spirit 
exhibited by the heresy hunter in every age is sufficient 
to prove that he has not learned Christ aright. The 
Modernist is never a heresy hunter. 


Dr. CLARENCE E. MACARTNEY, OF PHILADELPHIA 


The great revolt within the Protestant Church today 
fond Zeek against those who have ignored or denied the 


1Homiletic Review. 86: 186-90. September, 1923. The Battle Within 
the Churches; Fundamentalism vs. Liberalism. 


30 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Christ of the New Testament. It is not a quarrel over 
science, nor a dispute over theories of the second advent. 
It is a mighty and a righteous protest against a preach- 
ing which dishonors Jesus and would rob mankind of 
its alone hope. 


Rev. Murray SHIPLEY HowLANnp, PRESBYTERIAN, OF 

BUFFALO 

The attitude of the Fundamentalists, instead of being 
Scriptural, as they claim, is directly contrary to the 
teachings both of Christ and Saint Paul. Christ at- 
tacked the literalism of the Pharisees who taught the 
inspired authority of every word of the law and the 
prophets. Saint Paul declared that the letter killeth— 
the spirit giveth life... 

What the world needs is the message that Christ 
came to give: 1. The fatherhood of God; 2. the brother- 
hood of man; 3. the indwelling life of Christ; 4. the 
law of sacrificial service; 5. the coming of the kingdom 
of God and of right; and not discussions as to an iner- 
rant Bible and the virgin birth. 


Pror. SAMUEL McComp, oF THE EPIScopAL THEOLOG- 
ICAL SCHOOL, CAMBRIDGE, Mass. 
We need a drastic and far-reaching reformation, 
more thorough-going than that of the sixteenth century, 
if religion and the Church are to survive. 


Dr. Joun A. Rice, or TuLsa, OKLAHOMA 

Two antagonistic world-views are involved. To the 
one the world is a crystal, to the other a stream; to the 
one a fixed finality, to the other an eternal process. To 
the one, Christianity is a static thing of the first century ; 
to the other, a growing thing evolving the life that was 
involved in Jesus Christ. 


C. FOR THE FUNDAMENTALISTS 
WHAT IS A FUNDAMENTALIST?? 


. They have certain great convictions in com- 
mon, however, that divide them somewhat sharply from 
the Modernists. Some of the more relevant of these may 
be mentioned. They hold that Christianity is a particu- 
lar religion, specifically different from all other religions, 
that it received its specific content once and for all from 
Christ and his apostles, and that this content has received 
authoritative expression in the New Testament. Still 
further, they hold that the great historic facts recorded 
in the New Testament, such as the death and resurrec- 
tion of Christ, and the interpretation of these facts which 
it contains, are equally constituent elements of this con- 
tent. Apart from these facts there would be no Christ- 
tanity, but give the facts an interpretation other than that 
of the New Testament, and they do not give us Christ- 
janity. For the Fundamentalist, the doctrines of the New 
Testament are not merely explanation of certain great 
facts suitable to the intelligence of the first century; still 
less are they merely the intellectual expression of the re- 
ligious experiences of the early Christians; they are ex- 
planations of facts valid for all time. And since they 
hold to the supernaturalism of the New Testament, they 
see in Christianity not merely one stage in the religious 
development of mankind, but the final and absolute re- 
ligion. They hold that the religion of the New Testa- 
ment is a unitary phenomenon, and that the attempts of 
Modernists by means of literary and historical criticism 
to get back of the Christianity of the New Testament to 
a more primitive Christianity have ended in failure, that 


1 From Presbyterian. 94. No. 4: 3-4. January 24, 1924. 


32 SED ECTED SAR TICES 


a sounder scholarship has shown that the Christianity of 
Paul is one with the Christianity of the primitive dis- 
ciples, and the Christianity of the primitive disciples one 
with that commended by Jesus Himself. 


MR. BRYAN ON THE “FIVE POINTS”? 


The first proposition deals with the doctrine that nec- 
essarily comes first, namely, the inerrancy of the Bible. 
It is declared to be not only true, but “an essential doc- 
trine of the Word of God, and our standards, that the 
Holy Spirit did so inspire, guide and move the writers 
of Holy Scripture as to keep them from error.” 

The Bible is either the Word of God or merely a 
man-made book. If time permitted, I might defend the 
Christian position and point out as conclusive proof of 
the Bible’s divine origin the fact that the wisest men 
living today, with an inheritance of all the learning of 
the past, with countless books to consult and great uni- 
versities on every hand, cannot furnish the equal of, or 
a substitute for, this book which was compiled from the 
writings of men largely unlettered, scattered through 
many centuries and yet producing an unbroken story— 
men of a single race and living in a limited area, without 
the advantages of swift ships or telegraph wires. Why 
is it that we have made progress along other lines and 
yet have made no progress in the “Science of How to 
Love” ? the one science of which the Bible treats? We 
go back to the Bible for the foundation of our statute 
law and find that Moses compressed into a few sentences 
what the learned lawyers of the present day spread over 
volumes. We find in the Bible also the rules that govern 
our spiritual development and a moral code the like of 
which the world had never seen before and to which no 
improvements have been added throughout the centuries. 
Shall we accept the Bible as a book by inspiration given 

1 See p. 21. From his article on The Fundamentals. Forum. 70: 1665- 


80. July, 1923. ; 
2 Sic. Probably should read “Live.” 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 33 


or conclude that civilization has so dragged us down that 
educated men of today cannot do that which was done 
then by men without the aid of schools? My purpose, 
however, is not to enter into an extended defense of the 
Bible but rather to point out that it must either be ac- 
cepted as the revealed will of God or be dethroned and 
brought down to the level of the works of men. 

When one asserts that the Bible is not infallible, he 
must measure it by some standard which he considers 
better authority than the Bible itself. If the Bible is to 
be rejected as an authority, upon whose authority is it 
to be condemned? We must have a standard, where 
shall we find it? When one decides that the Bible is, 
as a whole or in part, erroneous, he sits in judgment 
upon it and, looking down from his own infallibility, de- 
clares it fallible—that is, that it contains falsehoods or 
errors. As no two of the critics of the Bible fully agree 
as to what part is myth and what part is authentic his- 
tory, each one, in fact, transfers the presumption of in- 
fallibility from the Bible to himself. 

Upon the first proposition all the rest depend. If 
the Bible is true—that is, so divinely inspired as to be 
free from error—then the second, third, fourth and fifth 
propositions follow inevitably, because they are based 
upon what the Bible actually says in language clear 
and unmistakable. If, on the other hand, the Bible is 
not to be accepted as true, there is no reason why any- 
body should believe anything in it that he objects to, no 
matter upon what his objection is founded. He need not 
go to the trouble of giving a reason for it; 1f he is at 
liberty to eliminate any passage which he does not like, 
then no reason is necessary. When the Bible ceases to 
be an authority—a divine authority—the Word of God 
can be accepted, rejected, or mutilated, according to the 
‘whim or mood of the reader. 

The second proposition which declares it to be “an 
essential doctrine of the Word of God and our standards 


34 SELECTED *ARTICUES 


that our Lord Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary” 
is really the pivotal point in the present controversy be- 
tween the so-called liberals and those who are described 
as conservatives. The action of the General Assembly 
has so exasperated a number of Presbyterian preachers 
that they have openly declared that they do not believe 
in the virgin birth, Why? Because there is any uncer- 
tainty in the record of the Saviour’s birth as given in 
Matthew and Luke? No, the account is written in simple 
language and in detail. Mary was the first one to in- 
quire whether such a birth was possible. The atheists, 
the agnostics, the infidels, and the doubters, were all an- 
ticipated by the Virgin herself. It is fortunate that the 
question was asked, because the answer to a question is 
more impressive than a statement which is not drawn out 
by a question. Luke, being a physician, was in the habit 
of dealing with childbirth. Who could more fittingly 
describe this event so important to the world? 

Critics say that the virgin birth is only mentioned 
twice, once in the Gospel of Matthew and once in the 
Gospel of Luke, but to be entirely fair they ought to ex- 
plain that no other Bible writers mention Christ’s birth. 
The virgin birth is not contradicted by any Bible writer, 
and nearly every writer in the Bible records miracles or 
supernatural manifestations just as mysterious as the vir- 
gin birth. 

The virgin birth is no more mysterious than the birth 
of each of us—it is simply different. No one without 
revelation has ever solved the mystery of life, whether it 
be the life found in man, or in the beast or in the plant. 
The God who can give life can certainly give it in any 
way or through any means that may please Him. It 
was just as easy for God to bring Christ into the world 
as He did, according to Matthew and Luke, as to bring 
us into the world as He did. Shall we doubt the power 
of God? If so, we do not believe in God. Or, relying 
upon our own wisdom, shall we deny that God would 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 35 


want to do what He is reported to have done? Who 
dares to make himself equal in wisdom with God—as 
one must be if he knows, without possibility of mistake, 
what God would or would not do? 

If Christ came down from the Father for the pur- 
pose of saving the people from their sins, is it unreason- 
able that His birth should have been different from the 
birth of others? 

The task that Christ came to perform was more 
than a man’s task. No man aspiring to be a God could 
have done what He did; it required a God condescend- 
ing to be a man. Is it unreasonable that one who offered 
Himself as a sacrifice for sin, revealed God to man, and 
guides man by His heaven-born wisdom, should have 
been conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the 
Virgin Mary? The rejection of the virgin birth not only 
condemns the Bible record on this subject as false but 
it changes one’s whole conception of Christ and makes 
it difficult, if not impossible, to present Him as the Bible 
presents Him. 

Those who refuse to believe in the virgin birth must 
account for Christ’s birth in some other way. It is fair 
to say that most of them regard Jesus as the son of 
Joseph, conceived in lawful wedlock, unless they prefer 
to regard Him as the illegitimate child of an immoral 
woman. We would do them no injustice if we called them 
by some name that would distinguish them from Chris- 
tians who accept the Bible as true and who believe that 
Christ was born as Matthew and Luke record. 

The so-called liberals seem to think Christians intol- 
erant when they refuse to count those worthy to bear the 
name of Christians who thus degrade the Son of God 
and Saviour of the world. Having adjusted themselves 
to the human theory, they cannot understand why it 
should shock Christians. As a matter of fact, the liberals 
are as dogmatic as the conservatives; they call the latter 
“unintelligent” and “ignorant” and assert—and they be- 


36 SEG) ED Aw LG 


lieve it—that “thinking” people will not join the church 
unless it allows the Bible to be so modified as to conform 
to what they call “the results of modern scientific re- 
search.” The conservatives reply, first, that they have 
no right to change the Bible; second, that Christianity 
is intended for all, not for the so-called “thinkers” only. 
The common people who heard Christ gladly have never 
heard gladly those who would substitute Darwin’s guess 
for the Mosaic record of creation; and, third, that the 
pure and simple Gospel makes a stronger appeal, than a 
denatured gospel, to the intellectual as well as the masses. 
In support of this they cite the fact that the churches 
that have adopted what they call the “scientific interpreta- 
tion of the Bible’ have not appealed to any large per- 
centage of the educated and not at all to the average man, 
whereas the Bible, taken literally, has found followers 
in every land, among every race and language, among 
the rich and poor, among the educated and the unedu- 
cated. The Bible, as written, speaks a universal language 
and makes its appeal to the heart of mankind, every- 
where. Christianity, being a religion, is built upon the 
heart, as all religions are; it would cease to be a religion 
if it appealed to the intellect alone. 

What progress can Christianity hope to make if it 
proclaims to the world that the Bible is full of error and 
that Jesus was but a man? Have not those who believe 
Christ to be the hope of the world and His plan of sal- 
vation the only plan that can raise man to the exalted 
place for which God intended him, have not such Chris- 
tians a right to protest against what they believe to be 
a death-blow to Christianity? 

But to return to the five points. The third proposi- 
tion deals with the sacrificial character of the death of 
Christ. Those who reject the virgin birth quite naturally 
and for the same reason reject the doctrine of the atone- 
ment. They deny that man ever fell; on the contrary, 
they contend that man has been rising from the beginning 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 37 


and, therefore, needs no Saviour. To such, Christ is 
just an example, differing in value to different individu- 
als according to the estimate that they place upon His 
wisdom. Those who reject the atonement and simply 
search Christ’s teachings for advice (if at any time they 
feel they need His advice) describe the Nazarene in dif- 
ferent ways. Some say that He was the most perfect 
man known to history; others say that He was a man of 
extraordinary merit; still others believe him an unusual 
man for His time; while some would simply put the title 
“Mr.” before His name and class Him among the well- 
meaning visionaries. To those who strip Christ of His 
deity, He can mean but little. If they will only take Him 
out of the man class and put Him in the God class all 
that the Bible says of Him will be easily understood 
and gladly accepted. 

It is hardly necessary to point out that the rejection 
of the atonement eliminates the element that has made 
Christianity a missionary force. In proportion as men 
reject the doctrine of the atonement their interest in the 
spread of the gospel is paralyzed. Why cross stormy 
eceans and endure continuing sacrifices upon the fron- 
tiers of the world if mankind does not need a Saviour 
and Christ was but an ordinary human being? Those 
who admire and follow uninspired philosophers form lit- 
erary clubs but not churches; and they send out few—if 
any—missionaries. Christ founded a spiritual kingdom 
—thousands of millions have gloried in His name—and 
millions have suffered death rather than surrender the 
faith that He implanted in their hearts; and this faith is 
living still, “in spite of dungeons, fire, and sword.” 

The fourth proposition, like the second and third, 
stands or falls with the first. The only information that 
we have regarding the bodily resurrection of Christ is 
found in the Bible and the only reason for rejecting it is 
the same given for the rejection of the virgin birth and 
the doctrine of the atonement, namely, that it is different 


38 SELECTED ARTICLES 


from anything else known among men. The resurrection 
of Christ—the bodily resurrection—is declared in the 
General Assembly pronouncement to be not only true, 
but an essential doctrine. “If Christ be not raised, your 
faith is vain,” exclaims the great apostle, Paul. The 
denial of Christ’s resurrection, taken in connection with 
the denial of the virgin birth and the denial of the atone- 
ment, completes His degradation. Take away concep- 
tion by the Holy Ghost, the honor of a divine mission, 
and the resurrection, and Christ ceases to be a character 
of importance. He claimed to be the Son of God; He 
claimed that He came to save man; He met death with 
the calm assurance that His blood would cleanse from 
sin all who accepted His salvation. If He can be indicted 
and convicted of being an impostor, He must retire into 
obscurity. This cannot be; there has not been a great 
reform in a thousand years that was not built about His 
teachings; there will not be in all the ages to come an 
important movement for the uplift of humanity that will 
not be inspired by His thought and words. He is the 
great “fact of history” and the growing figure of all time, 
—the only growing figure in the world today. And yet, 
the so-called liberals would wrap Him again in grave- 
cloths and roll back the stone that served as a door for 
His sepulchre. In so doing, they would crush the hope 
and comfort He has brought to man. If the Bible is true, 
Christ has made of death a narrow, starlit strip between 
the companionship of yesterday and the reunion of to- 
morrow; if the Bible is false, who shall answer for us 
the agonizing question of Job, “If a man die, shall he 
live again?” 

If Christ did not rise from the dead, He could not 
have appeared to His disciples and therefore we must 
discard as false the concluding verses of the last chapter 
of Matthew: 


18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying: All power 
is given unto me in Heaven and in earth. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 39 


19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
pea of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you: and lo, J am with you always; even unto 
the end of the world. 

Accepting this record as true Christians carry to the 
world a gospel intended for every human being, a code 
of morals that is to endure for all time, and a Saviour, 
with all power behind Him, who will be present always. 
What kind of gospel can those preach whose Christ was 
born a man like themselves, performed no miracles, 
brought no salvation, and who, after preaching to a 
group of deluded followers, was laid away in a new made 
grave and became the perpetual prisoner of man’s great 
enemy, death? 

The fifth proposition asserts that belief in the mira- 
cles performed by Christ is an essential doctrine of the 
Word of God. This proposition might well have come 
second because the veracity of the Word of God must be 
denied before the miracles can be disputed and the mir- 
acles must be discarded before objection can be made to 
the second, third, and fourth propositions. The natural 
order with those who depart from the Faith of our 
Fathers is first to deny the infallibility of the Bible, then 
to deny the authenticity of the miracles, then to deny the 
virgin birth, the atonement, and the resurrection because 
they are miracles. When all the miracles and all the 
supernatural are eliminated from the Bible it becomes a 
“scrap of paper.” When its truths are diluted by the 
language of men they cease to stir the heart. “Weasel 
words,” to use a phrase employed, if not coined, by 
President Roosevelt, such as “poetical,” “allegorical,” 
and ‘“‘symbolical” suck the meaning out of the majestic 
utterances of those who were the spokesmen of Jehovah. 


pe eae, ge alt 





PEATE I Oth EE yl Sareres mite 





- 







y Seren tts GO). et ee 
ee : yg to ee eek a“ 
SEMA ee PRL ES | cin i Yao 



























iNT { : 2 f a 


Va. Pures PAA ih We 


4 a wail es! 
HES 70 Yeast ¢ ‘aoe 2 ho 
ill mab RES 8S) algae gS ye eas =~ 


oe 


mat pir Mie “nny ecu” (% ence iivineltte ay 


thud teal puhabetald be (OS 0 an a TR Os oe belie : 
act hard PM US 
\ a e% r nts >r > 4 
‘MM BIER IT etre eis c “roa ; Lone. we} a Pee: 
PATO, E el ae AG Poi) Tap ve ey ited it aeee 


; af 
ote Oe ae” eo =e ' “bin OF ode Raley ve : a> 
i A? Se ose Ai, ‘ F Pe tai Lita ales 


OVS MVGOS oul hie ty Sell apd ayer et aie ~ 
SE i er oer: eer Tit ae Reg jet hi, 


Potiesstsrs: are, loa As... aa) ret lA pe ”, ie 

ae og? , Rol ' \ Loh 
pk Aon hole ce ee 5 pee hah ot le FT i APE By pe, Seg 7) 
ot , iy \ \ +) k a4 ai; ( | rj ats a ef pA eqy , i e nyt yoy tay “ ee 


= | ) 4 fi ; -* 
~ ‘ ¢ ty a Vs ¢ 3 «. “+ hea 4 » 
ne . co MOR Sea) SWS 2 io ee 


4 : halt, 
 alali oe fase > ve 2 a wy et Re g3 * 1ifiy oegeae 
e yf wl { ve ae re 17 e E 
’ eb hw pian Rea ae (ats Woe, 
re nates ae o | Fieve iviivel. me santa 
Pete: A . Mis 2 ot ral f ann ia isu ageT, 7M ae 
foe saaer elon! Rr uct aa ee 
Weare eter tet bs mf wy! hk gy TELE RE ry: a re a 
Mae 22S +h - i, 5 ‘i head ‘ cs RED oy ite ae “bas 
vee Cee ae i ; janice a far he Dea nade Wai ii 
lope hi? ‘feeel Be dis ; A Lieve aa ah id tess ay 
ate \ i} oh , tM ve ry Lace ie f A] } jaeehouaie ett 
Meher tts bed alt aga S aceit vee she eo 


een ti ei Seana wis yh td Pe 
are ‘ Th? Of 4, 4 ' ' Pat 1 ws ery 
PEE TA Upon Ta aril 


oa Paae WAP Bidatocis nerds "hplgn® 
y e*3 ’ i 


j a 
det ' eesti ie tae? SOW < sha! PH 
SPALL ty alae pl) 9) eee 


af 


D. FOR THE LIBERALS 
QUOTATIONS 


By identifying the new learning with heresy, you 
make orthodoxy synonymous with ignorance.—Eras- 
mus.* 

He that speaks against his own reason, speaks against 
his own conscience: and therefore it is certain, no man 
serves God with a good conscience, who serves him 
against his reason.—Jeremy Taylor.” 

He who begins by loving Christianity better than the 
truth, will proceed by loving his own sect or church bet- 
ter than Christianity, and end in loving himself better 
than all.—Coleridge.’ 

He who helps to disencumber Christianity from du- 
bious or false accretions is rendering to it a service 
which may be more urgently necessary than if he com- 
posed a book of evidences.—Dean Farrar.’ 

But at the present moment two things about the 
Christian religion must surely be clear to anybody with 
eyes in his head. One is, that men cannot do without it; 
the other, that they cannot do with it as it is—Matthew 
Arnold. 


ieee RIS TANT TS "PROGRESSIVES 


If wherever one takes seeing eyes one sees that 
growth is the law of life and movement is its innermost 


1 Heading of title page, The Modern Churchman, Oxford. 
2 Quoted in Coleridge. Aids to Reflection. p. 303. 

8 Aids to Reflection. p. 132. 

4 Quoted in Drake, Problems of Religion. p. 5. 

5 Quoted in Drake, Problems of Religion. p. 5. 


6 From a sermon, Progressive Christianity, by Harry Emerson Fosdick, 
preached in the First Presbyterian Church, New York, May 8, 1921. 


42 SELECTED ARTICLES 


necessity, how can one suppose that religion can escape 
the urgency of this principle? All views of Christianity 
tend to group themselves under two heads. The first is 
this: that Christianity is a static system, finally formul- 
ated in creed and ritual and practice at some time in the 
past; a deposit to be accepted im toto if at all; not to be 
added to, not to be subtracted from, not to be changed, 
its i’s all dotted and its t’s all crossed. Take it or leave 
it, but there it is, a finished article. And the second 
head under which you can group all other conceptions of 
Christianity is this: that Christianity is not a finished 
article, a static system; it is a growing movement. It is 
like a tree whose roots are deep in the spirit of Jesus. 
Sometimes it puts forth misshapen branches that must 
be pruned. Sometimes old branches die and must be 
lopped away. Because it is a growing, living, vital thing, 
it never has been quite the same thing in any two gener- 
ations. We do not see it as our fathers did; our children 
will not see it as we do: but so long as its roots are in 
the spirit of Jesus let it grow, for its leaves shall be for 
the healing of the nations. 

As between these two ways of conceiving Christian- 
ity, how can any man hesitate to choose, if he really 
knows Jesus and believes that Jesus still is the master 
of the movement that bears His name? A static religion 
was the last thing He ever dreamed of or wanted. Was 
He not reverent toward His people’s past? No one more 
so! His thought, His speech, His spirit was saturated 
with the beauty of His race’s heritage. Yet listen to 
Flim: “It was: said unto you of old time =.) 2a. wan 
f say unto you.’ Again and again that utterance fell 
from His lips. His truth was rooted in the past but it 
was not imprisoned in the past; it grew up out of the 
past, not destroying but fulfilling it, as He said. He had 
the spirit of the prophets in Him, the prophets who once 
had spoken to His people in words of fire; but old forms 
that He thought had been outgrown He brushed aside. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 43 


He would not have His gospel a patch on an old garment, 
He said, nor would He put it like new wine into old 
wine skins. Even when He bade farewell to His dis- 
ciples He did not talk to them as if what He himself had 
said were a finished system: “I have yet many things to 
say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit 
when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall guide you 
into all the truth.” 


PR) itt Lovie A Pek Oooh OAD St 


One cannot have served for a generation in the active 
ministry of the Protestant Church without thinking a 
good deal about it all, and coming to some conclusions. 
The times call for much plain speaking about religion— 
the more the better. Here are one man’s convictions 
—uttered freely, subject to revision, certainly open to 
criticism and challenge; but the honest outcome of cumu- 
lative service and thinking. 

Protestantism is today in a critical position. It may 
have had its day, and henceforth exist as a declining, 
weakening cause. It may burst into new vigor, and go 
on into the splendor of a new day and a new life. 
Whether this or that shall be its destiny depends on the 
Protestants themselves, on no one else, on nothing else; 
on their courage, on their insight, on their obedience to 
the leadership of the Spirit of Christ, on whether they 
let their churches remain partly Catholic, or make them 
wholly Protestant. 

The danger does not lie in any “Roman peril,” in 
any ‘‘Catholic encroachments,” which Protestantism must 
stoutly resist, or be driven from the field. The remedy 
does not lie in the use of propaganda, or any other out- 
ward means of defense or offense, whether the coarse 
indefensible methods of the Ku Klux Klan, or more 


1 By William Pierson Merrill, D.D., pastor of the Brick Presbyterian 
Church, New York. World’s Work. 47 : 418-24. February, 1924. 


44 SELECTED ARTICLES 


subtle anti-Catholic agitation. The simple remedy is in 
making Protestantism true to itself; for if fully true to 
itself it will be irresistible. There is ample room today, 
there will bx ample room for many years ahead, for a 
genuinely “ atholic’ Church, and for a genuinely “Pro- 
testant” Ch irch; for a “religion of authority,” and a “re- 
ligion of the spirit.” There is little room today, and there 
will be less and less room, for a church which tries to 
serve two masters, which professes to trust in the spirit, 
but still clings to the emblems and methods and assump- 
tions of external authority, afraid in its heart to let them 
go, and really to live its life and do its work “not by 
might, nor by craft, but by spirit.” 

Up to the present time Protestantism has been able 
to hold together the men who face forward and the men 
who walk backward. There are large sections of Pro- 
testantism, in Europe and America, which are heartily 
committed to the forward look and the forward march. 
On the whole Protestantism has faced forward. But a 
determined and vociferous party is now trying to hold 
the Protestant churches back. It must not be allowed to 
succeed; for its success would be the doom of Protest- 
antism. 

Protestantism will be doomed to dwindle and die, if 
it keeps on trying to compete with Catholicism on its 
own lines and ground. The Reformation went but part 
way. It was glory and wonder enough, to dare go so 
far as it did at the time. Had we but the courage those 
men had, we would go to the limit! We stand where 
they left us. They reformed and protested. We have 
kept on reforming and protesting, trying to hold to the 
Catholic basis and yet stand for free and _ spiritual 
religion. 

Protestantism has held too much to the Catholic idea 
of authority. Only it has substituted a theory of a me- 
chanically inerrant book for a claim of a magically in- 
errant pope—a less pretentious. if more reasonable, 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 45 


pretension, a weaker claim because less spectacular, less 
easy to make real. Ask any literalistic Protestant why 
he believes in an inerrant Bible; he cannot give an ade- 
quate reason, any more than the Romanist can give an 
adequate reason for his faith in an inerrant pope. ““You 
must believe it;’ “You are not safe without it;”’ that 
is all. 

Protestantism has held too strongly to the Catholic 
idea of faith as a “deposit’—a system of belief, once 
given, which one must accept implicitly if he would be 
safe and right with God. Only it has substituted a be- 
wildering variety of competing doctrinal declarations for 
one authorized belief. Enforced intellectual conformity 
has at least the semblance of majesty in the Catholic sys- 
tem; it becomes ridiculous in Protestantism, with its 
scores of sects, each trying to enforce conformity to its 
private system of belief. 

Protestantism has held too much to the Catholic idea 
that God is found best in the unusual and the extraor- 
dinary “Would you be surest of God? Watch for a 
miracle!” We cling to the magic of sacramentarianism, 
or obstinately defend the divinity of the inexplicable; we 
say: “No miracle, no God.” Only we put all our miracles 
back 1900 years or more. The Catholic is more consis- 
ent. His God works miracles now. Here also Protest- 
antism too often insists on the same faith, but in 
diluted form. 

Just as a matter of strategy, Protestantism cannot af- 
ford to keep on with this attempt to compete with Cath- 
olicism on its own ground. Such an attempt. must 
issue in defeat. It is like pitting amateurs against pro- 
fessionals. A diluted religion makes a feeble appeal! 

Protestantism is at the crossroads! One of the divid- 
ing paths is a continuation of that already followed for 
the most part, a path carefully kept distinct from the old 
Roman road, but parallel to it. We may insist that our 
way is better than theirs; perhaps we can make clear 


46 SELECTED SARTICLES 


that it is; we may point out that we allow freedom to 
take diverging routes. But our protestations are of little 
effect if the two main roads clearly move on side by side, 
even though some way apart. When two things are alike 
in their claims and assumptions, it is instinctive for men 
to assume that “the old is better.”’ If men are going to 
have “religion of authority,” they prefer it full strength. 

The other course is clear, open, straight. If Pro- 
testanism would cease “halting between two opinions,” 
and would take that way with a whole heart, a clear con- 
science, and an undivided judgment, a great day would 
dawn, not only for Protestantism, but for the soul of 
man—one of the real “days of the Son of Man.” 

What must Protestantism do in order to take this way 
that shines more and more unto the perfect day? These 
are some of the answers one man would make on the 
basis of his thought, experience, and observation: 

1. Protestantism must frankly and fully abandon the 
whole notion of external authority of the Roman type, 
and trust wholeheartedly in spirit. It may keep its 
creeds, but only as helps toward personal conviction and 
united action, as declarations of the things most surely 
believed at the time, and therefore registering the ad- 
vance thus far made. It will keep its Bible, as the su- 
preme expression of spiritual experience, as the highest 
written revelation of God, as a trustworthy guide not to 
the facts of science but to the conduct of life and the 
knowledge of God and duty, no more to be taken literally 
than music or poetry are. It will care not less but more 
for Christ and His Gospel of redemption. It must put 
a premium on progress, rather than on conformity, in 
thinking. It must think of faith, not as a deposit, but as 
an adventure; not as a treasure in the memory, but as 
an attitude of the living soul. It must exalt as its hero 
the one who seeks truth at any cost, even more than the 
one who defends what others have thought true. 

This means that the absurdity of denominationalism 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 47 


must be left behind. Doubtless it will always be wise and 
convenient to organize Christians into varying groups, to 
meet their differing ideas and sentiment and ways. But 
“denominationalism,” as here used, means more and other 
than that. It means an undue pride in one’s own vari- 
ety; an intolerance toward others; an insistence on 
shibboleths of doctrine and form and practice, as stand- 
ards of orthodoxy, as criteria of good standing and fel- 
lowship. All that must go; for it is inconsistent with 
Protestantism and, indeed, with Christianity. Denomi- 
nationalism would substitute for the Christian Church a 
set of private ecclesiastical clubs. 

It is time we were facing the question: What right 
has a denomination to existr Of course men and womer 
have a legal right to get together and form any sort of 
society the law will permit. But it is plain truth that no 
organization of men and women has a right to call itself 
a Christian Church which is not built on Christ’s lines. 
Men differ as to what Christ requires, demands, desires 
a church to be. Therefore there is room for varying at- 
tempts to realize the ideal of Christ. But no denomina- 
tion has a right to exist, save as an attempt to realize 
Christ’s ideal for the universal church. All our great de- 
nominations were started by men who believed with all 
the force of their souls that their particular doctrines or 
forms were essential to Christianity, that “out of them 
there was no ordinary possibility of salvation.” This 
nodern, easy-going practice of recognizing that members 
of other ecclesiastical bodies are good Christians, and yet 
insisting that the doctrines and practices which divide us 
from them are essential, would strike our forefathers as 
ludicrously inconsistent. Thank God that we have thus 
grown more broadminded! But let us have the courage 
of our convictions, and own cheerfully that none of the 
things that divide any one set of Christians can possibly 
be counted essential for any Christian. 

If Christ did not found the church and lay down its 


48 SELECTED: (ARIES 


lines, it has no divine authority. If He did, then to 
change those lines, to alter conditions, to demand what 
He did not demand, to insist on that which He ignored, 
is indefensible. To be more than Christian is as un- 
Christian as to be less than Christian. 

As matters now are, practically every Protestant de- 
nomination demands of its officers, or of its members, or 
of somebody, what it knows Christ never demanded of 
anybody. It counts essential what Christ and His 
apostles clearly did not count essential. It clings to 
things which Christ never mentioned. Plead, if you will, 
that your denomination is standing for a “sacred contri- 
bution,” its own “peculiar heritage.’ Very well, stand 
for that! But if you make that “peculiar heritage” of 
yours an essential test by which you include or exclude, 
you are usurping the throne of the Master; and that 
means, in so far forth, that you are not really Christian. 

Protestant Church unity—real, though not nec- 
essarily organic—that much-desired, long-deferred end— 
would come surely and speedily if every denomination of 
Protestants would simply decide honestly that it believes 
Christ and the New Testament account essential for the 
Christian Church, and then put its own doctrine and 
practice and fellowship on that basis, giving up insistence 
on anything and everything else, no matter how tradi- 
tionally precious. 

2. Protestantism must accept, with all its implica- 
tions, and in a daring spirit, the truth that religion is a 
“way” of life rather than a formula. It must test a Chris- 
tian, not so much by what he thinks or by what he feels, 
as by the way he lives. It must assert that Jesus meant 
us to live in the way of His words and example, and that 
any profession of faith in Him is hollow and ineffective 
which does not issue in doing as He says. 

This is a hard path to take. There are many who 
grow uneasy at attempts to apply Christ’s ideals to living 
questions and current practices, What an incredible in- 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 49 


version of reality when one is restless at hearing the 
teachings of Jesus discussed and applied, and ‘“‘wishes the 
minister would preach the Gospel.” What is the Gos- 
pel, if not the way of life according to Jesus Christ? 
Men must have creeds, sacraments, worship, all that the 
church stands for; but all for the end of right, loving, 
helpful, godly living. Let Protestantisni say that, and 
stand by it, instead of toying longer with the seductive 
message of priestliness in all ages—that something else 
can be a substitute for righteousness. This is the test— 
What are you doing with Jesus and His way? Do you 
actually line up with Him against the world? Let 
Protestantism make that its chief test of good standing. 

3. Protestantism must break squarely with Catholic 
distrust of the human intellect and avow a complete, un- 
reserved trust in the processes and results of scientific 
investigation and thinking. 

Romanists have stood by their “deposit of faith,” 
anathematizing all who depart from it, whatever science 
may say. Protestants have professed a faith in freedom 
of intellect; but too often they have let themselves be 
dragged along grudgingly, timidly, making half-hearted 
attempts to tie bits of new knowledge to bits of the old 
belief. Is it any wonder that some who have for the 
Roman Catholic a sort of contemptuous respect have for 
such Protestants only contempt? The Protestant must 
declare his faith that all truth is God’s truth, that fact 
ascertained by honest investigation 1s always to be taken 
as truth. He must not grudgingly or timidly acquiesce 
in the right of the human intellect to free scientific inves- 
tigation of any and every matter, including religion, of 
any and every book, including the Bible; he must glory in 
that right, eagerly champion and defend it, working 
shoulder to shoulder with the scientist in the search for 
truth. “Warfare between science and religion” may at 
times be a necessary and worthy conflict for the Roman- 
ist. It is always needless and destructive internecine 


50 SELECTED ARTICLES 


strife for the Protestant. Protestantism must avow its 
absolute confidence in the best obtainable knowledge, and 
must stand by that avowal, though the old heavens fall. 

4. Most important of all, Protestantism must take an 
unequivocal stand for the sanctity and supreme impor- 
tance of common present living reality. 

There lingers in many Protestants something of the 
old notion that the further we get back into the past, or 
away from living reality, the nearer we come to God; 
that common sense is essentially undivine. ‘Here is mir- 
acle; here is direct creation; therefore here is God,” says 
the old theology. “Explain the miracle, describe the pro- 
cess of creation, and God disappears. Common sense 
cannot get on with the divine. God can live only when 
cloaked in mystery.” 

Here Protestantism must take the new way with 
cheerful courage. It must see and assert and defend the 
claim, that the more simple and common and universal 
and indubitable anything is, the more divine it is; that 
the more science explains the process, the better God 
stands revealed therein; that when we take some Biblical 
story, some ancient idea, some well-known doctrine, some 
traditional rite or form, and make it fit present-day ex- 
perience, we are finding God, not losing Him; that the 
less theatrical and magical God’s revetation is shown 
to be, the more it becomes a real revelation of God to 
meet human needs. 

For after all what we really need most is not the past 
history of a God who once worked wonders, but light on 
God as we deal with Him today, and as He deals with us. 
And the more the past experiences of men with God, and 
the past dealings of God with men, can be shown to be 
like our own relations with our own God, the more real 
and worthy the revelation of God 1s. 

Catholicism says: “Hold to the God who has been.” 
Protestantism, when true to itself will say: “Live with 


the God Who is.” 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 51 


\When men begin to point out that the great facts 
and doctrines of Christianity are striking, glorious, per- 
fect forthsettings of universal truths; that there is much 
in nature and in other religions setting forth the same 
truths; that the inspiration of the Bible writers, while 
it may go far beyond, is akin to that of poet and artist 
and musician; that the perfect divinity of Jesus, while 
it may be much more, is truly the supreme manifestation 
of the divine that is in all men and “rolls through all 
things ;” that the atonement on Calvary is the supreme 
expression of the cosmic law that life advances through 
the sacrifice of the fittest and best; that the resurrection 
of Christ is the seal on the unquenchable hope of immor- 
tality in the human heart—when Christian truth is thus 
knit up with the facts of life, the Catholic is uneasy, 
for to him God is being lost in the common; but the true 
Protestant rejoices and gives thanks, for he is finding 
God where he needs Him most, finding the real and liv- 
ing and true God. 

The true Protestant may, and probably will, believe in 
miracle. To be religious at all, one must believe in a non- 
mechanical universe, a world at the heart of which is a 
person not a dynamo, freedom not necessity. The Prot- 
estant may accept as true all the miracle stories in the 
Bible that are not unworthy of the God and Father of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. But to make acceptance of the 
literal historical accuracy of every story in the Bible a 
test of Christian standing is to deny the real Protestant 
faith. It is to manifest ‘“‘an evil heart of unbelief, in fall- 
ing away from the Living God.” To the true Protestant, 
nothing in theology is or can be of first or fundamental 
importance which has not a vital connection with 
living experience of Christian believers. 

Protestantism is at the crossroads! And a vociferous, 
determined party in its ranks is attempting, by threats, 
by arguments, by any and every means, to keep it march- 
ing along the old way, parallel to the old Roman road, 


52 SEUEC TED GR PIGLES 


though at a distance from it, and alleged to be utterly 
unlike it. Tell a Fundamentalist that he is fundamentally 
a Romanist, and he would be shocked. Yet fundamen- | 
talism is diluted Romanism, or denatured Protestantism. » 
It virtually denies the reality and sufficiency of the spirit- | 
ual. It asserts, in its five points, that that alone is 
real which appeals to the senses—no real inspiration 
\v (fAivinity in Jesus, unless it has a physical basis, through 
~ Sin the Bible unless it is in the manuscripts; no real 
a particular kind of birth; no real resurrection unless 
podily ; no real atonement except through material blood; 
no real presence of Christ with His people until He 
comes back with a physical body. The Fundamentalist 
thinks he is standing for the Protestant faith, defending 
essential Christianity. He is really denying the very fun- 
damental position of Protestantism, the supremacy, 
authority, and sufficiency of God-enlightened spiritual ex- 
perience. He is holding the Christianity of Christ insuffi- 
cient, in that he demands we hold essential what Christ 
ignored. Jesus said not a syllable about the inerrancy 
of the Bible, or about the manner of His own birth. He 
deprecated faith based on miracles and signs. To make 
essential these matters which He ignored is equivalent 
to a denial of His Lordship. Such a Protestantism as 
the fundamentalists would make is simply a shadow of 
| Romanism, with its claims and pretensions, and none 
of its glamor and impressiveness. A man of today, 
sharing today’s full and glad trust in free and indepen- 
dent thinking, its wholehearted interest in spiritual ex- 
perience, may have a certain respect for Roman Catholic- 
ism, with its rigid consistency, its obstinate defence of un- 
broken tradition. What respect can he have for a Prot- 
estantism that tries to be half traditional and half free? 
Protestantism at the crossroads! There is a great 
and growing company of men and women who believe 
in God, and love Jesus Christ, and want to serve men for 
His sake and in His spirit, who find it utterly impossible 


a 


1 See p. a1. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 53 


to submit to the yoke of imposed ecclesiastical authority 
in the matter of their thinking. The Roman Catholic 
Church for them is impossible. Can the Protestant 
Church win and hold them for Christ and His religion? 
That depends on the road Protestantism takes. The is- 
sue is clearly defined. The roads fork so that no one can 
miss seeing the parting of the ways. Is Protestantism 
to “stick” where Luther and Calvin left 1t? John Robin- 
son asked that question away back in 1620 when the Pil- 
grims were leaving Delftshaven. It is pertinent to ask it 
again today. Shall Protestantism continue to be a par- 
tially reformed Catholicism, a modified Romanism, or is 
it now ready to become what the great reformers meant 
that it should be, the natural and instinctive faith of 
every free soul, the religion of democracy, the religion 
of the spirit, the religion which was and is in the heart 
and soul and teachings and life of Jesus Christ? 

When Luther was on his way to Worms, men and 
women lined the roadside, crying out to him, “Do not fail 
us,” invoking curses on him if he weakened, blessings 
if he stood firm. They saw the issues but dimly; but 
somehow they knew their freedom and progress to be 
bound up with that one man’s “plain truth to manhood 
and to God’s supreme design.” A great host of men and 
women who would fain believe, who long to find God, 
and to follow Christ, and to live in the power and joy of 
a real Christian faith and fellowship, and at the same 
time to keep faith, as in honor they must, with their own 
honest thinking and their own spiritual integrity, line 
the way today, crying out to the leaders of the Protestant 
Pouechee Do not fail us! And we musty and shall 
not fail! 

Frederick W. Robertson charted the way long ago: 
‘To live by faith in God; to do and say the right because 
it is lovely; to dare to gaze on the splendor of naked 
truth, without putting a false veil before it to terrify 
children and old women with mystery and vagueness— 


84 SELECTED ARTICLES 


that is the life of a true, brave man who will take Christ 
and His mind for the truth instead of the clamor either 
of the worldly world, or of the religious world.” 


WHAT IS “MODERNISM” ?? 


... We shall therefore use the term “Modernist” as 
denoting the movement in the Anglican church, and in- 
deed, in other churches, which believes that religion 
needs to be interpreted afresh to the modern man and 
that it can be so interpreted without the loss of any es- 
sential element. It is prepared to welcome without 
Peset Vern tile?n s tectita of historical criticism and 
scientific discovery with their new outlook on the world. 
It strives to preserve a real continuity with the past and 
1s resolved to work within the church to which its adher- 
ents belong. At the same time it recognizes in varying 
degrees that the time has come when services, formulas, 
and doctrinal statements require revision. It needs, how- 
ever, to be said very clearly that Modernism is not pri- 
marily the acceptance of a set of opinions and new 
dogmas, critical or scientific. Any given Modernist may 
or may not believe in the Virgin Birth or the empty tomb, 
or the apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel. The 
essence of Modernism lies, not in its conclusions, but in 
the way they are reached and the temper in which they 
are held. Modernists agree that we can no longer appeal 
to the authority of Bible, creeds or church as something 
fixed and decisive; they agree that the Spirit of God is 
speaking in divers channels and by divers voices and that 
we must be ready to hear all that He saith to the 
churches; and they agree that truth flourishes best in an 
atmosphere of freedom and that the church must be 
brave enough to suffer a great variety of opinions within 
its walls. 


1 By the late Cyril W. Emmett. The Modernist Movement in the 
Church of England. Journal of Religion. 2 : 561-76. November, 1922. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 55 


THE ISSUE BETWEEN THE FUNDAMENTAL- 
[oom LOE MODE RINISTS,+ 


The fundamental issue is the conflict between the 
open and the closed mind. That exactly sums up the 
whole question. What at the moment is called funda- 
nentalism is in reality an attitude of mind characteristic 
of man as far back as we can trace his thinking. 

In order to appreciate this fully we must leave reli- 
gion altogether and go to the fundamental science of bi- 
ology. Prior to self-consciousness living things were 
governed by the vegetative nervous system and were 
under the complete dominance of the emotions and in- 
stincts. In the long course of our evolution there was 
gradually evolved a central nervous system ultimately 
finding its seat in the brain, and for the first time reason 
appeared. 

At that moment began the inner conflict symbolically 
described in the third chapter of Genesis and called in 
theology the fall. 

Now reason is relatively a late comer and all biolo- 
gists are agreed that most men are still under the domi- 
nance of their instincts and emotions. One of the chief 
characteristics of this type of person is the craving for 
certainty, particularly certainty with reference to the fu- 
ture. And along with this phenomenon goes the dread, 
the sincere dread, of altering the status quo in matters 
religious. 

This type of human nature, unaccustomed to inde- 
pendent thinking, has throughout all history fallen back 
for its guidance upon an external infallible court of ap- 
peal to which it can always go with absolute confidence 
as to the verdict. 

In the time of Christ the representatives of this group 
were in the majority. The Pharisees had placed the 


1By Rev. Stuart L. Tyson, vice-president of the Modern Churchmen’s 
Union. Christian Work. p. 18-19. January 5, 1924. 


56 SELECTEDVARTIGCEES 


court of appeal in the law. They believed that Gcd’s final 
revelation was to be found there. Christ came affirming 
that God had new truth to impart. The fact that it was 
new condemned it, and because Christ continued to 
preach it, they determined to kill him. 

At all stages in Christian history since that day this 
dead hand has been in evidence. Today the successors 
of these men are, as we have said, called Fundamen- 
talists. Their essential characteristic is a mind closed to 
new truth. All alike, whether “Catholic” Fundamen- 
talist or Protestant Fundamentalist, believe that in a par- 
ticular period in the past the full revelation of truth was 
completed. If Protestant Fundamentalists, the period of 
completion will perhaps be the seventeenth century; if 
“Catholic” Fundamentalists, it will be the thirteenth. 

Both alike living in the twentieth century, look back- 
ward for their inspiration. Each confounds that which 
the historian knows is but a human interpretation of 
truth adapted to a particular age with truth itself, and 
affirms that a man is loyal to Christ only in so far as he 
makes his own that interpretation. , 

Now it should be clearly recognized that these men 
are good men and also sincere. The Modernist has no 
quarrel whatever with them for holding this position. His 
studies have shown him in the clearest manner that there 
are diversities of gifts in different types of human nature, 
and he rejoices in a church which is comprehensive and 
many-sided. 

His protest begins at the moment when this or any 
other type, in an egoism utterly alien to the spirit of the 
Gospel, affirms that its own intellectual conception of 
truth is more pleasing to God than another, and a great 
weakness of fundamentalism is its un-Christian utter- 
ances in this regard. It has made the mistake of con- 
founding truth with a particular interpretation of truth. 

What today is called modernism is a point of view 
that stands for the open mind; the belief, namely, that 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 57 


truth is not given all at once, but, on the contrary, to 
quote from the New Testament, is imparted “in many 
portions and in many manners,” according as man is 
able to grasp it. 

The Modernist believes, and he finds justification for 
his belief not only in the teachings of Christ, but in the 
universal witness of history, that the revelation of truth 
has been and is and will be progressive. At first, just as 
in the individual in childhood, so in the race as a whole, 
it is elementary and primitive. 

When what has been given has been assimilated, 
more truth is imparted, and this added truth necessarily 
involves some modification of what up to that time has 
been believed. The process is again repeated. Still 
more truth is given and still further modification is 
required. 

The Modernist is convinced that the process will con- 
tinue so long as time shall last. With the greatest of 
all Christians, Paul, he is continually saying both to 
himself and to others, “Now I know in part.” 

It is not that he imagines truth itself to undergo 
alteration; truth is what is, but our conception of truth 
(which the Fundamentalist mistakenly confounds with 
truth itself) undergoes modification in each succeeding 
generation. This is in strict accord with the principle 
enunciated by Christ himself, who is reported to have 
said just prior to His death, 

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye are not able to 


bear them now. Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of Truth is 
come, He will guide you unto all the truth. 


Or to put it in other words, the Fundamentalist con- 
ceives of religion as static; the Modernist preaches it 
as dynamic. This is the real underlying issue of which 
we observe merely the manifestations in the different 
churches today. 

Differences of belief between the Fundamentalist and 
the Modernist today are almost accidental. The Funda- 


58 SELECTED ARTICLES 


mentalist, owing to his philosophical position, must nec- 
essarily express himself along one line; the Modernist, 
on the other hand, is desirous of consecrating every bit 
of new knowledge, from whatever source derived, to the 
religion of Christ, partly because he loves truth above all 
things, partly because he is eager to show men and wo- 
men, trained in twentieth century habits of thought, that 
the Christian religion has lost none of its pristine vitality, 
and that it is possible to harmonize with its essential 
truths what these men and women have learned to be 
true in other departments of life. 

As a simple illustration, Mr. Bryan, that eminent 
Fundamentalist, necessarily feels that the evolutionary 
hypothesis is antagonistic to the Christian religion be- 
cause it contradicts the second chapter of Genesis. The 
Modernist, on the other hand, who reveres the religious 
teachings of the second chapter of Genesis quite as sin- 
cerely as Mr. Bryan, has come to realize that the form of 
the narrative is wholly symbolic and was never intended 
to be a historical fact. 

Or as to the whole question of the miraculous: The 
Fundamentalist sincerely believes that these abnormal 
events described in the New Testament actually occurred, 
simply because the text of the New Testament says so. 
The Modernist has come to the clear realization that 
these are not in any sense religious, but purely scientific 
questions, and should be set aside for scientific investi- 
gators ultimately to pass upon them. 

The Fundamentalist is absolutely convinced that be- 
lief in Christ is indissolubly bound up with not only the 
manner in which He is alleged to have entered the world, 
but also the way in which some New Testament docu- 
ments affirm He departed from it. The Modernist says 
these matters are indifferent. My inner experience tes- 
tifies to the reality of the living Christ. I do not know 
how He entered or how He departed from the world, and 
if I did my faith in Him, which in fact is based on my 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 59 


fellowship with Him, would be neither increased nor de- 
creased. 

The grave temptation of the Fundamentalist is to be 
intolerant. One of the central convictions of the Mod- 
ernist is that tolerance is among the highest Christian 
virtues. One would shut out, the other welcomes with all 
his heart the New Learning. None who in an impar- 
tial spirit is carefully observing the trend of human 
thought in the western world today can be in the slightest 
doubt as to which will emerge victorious. 


THE ONE FUNDAMENTAL? 


“Therefore I say unto you, every sin and blasphemy shall be 
forgiven unto men; but blasphemy against the Spirit shall 
not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against 
the Son of man, tt shall be forgiven him; but whosover shall 
speak against the Holy Spint, it shall not be forgiven him.”— 
Matthew 12:31, 32. 

This is a hard saying. It is one of those texts we 
like to leave alone. Preachers, as well as other Christians, 
when they come to this place, tread softly and avert the 
face, and pass by on the other side. If we should speak 
cut our real thoughts we would wish at times that this 
text were not in the Bible. It does not seem like Jesus 
to say such words. 

Have we ever asked ourselves whether the trouble 
may not be with our idea of Jesus, rather than with the 
saying? Conventional ideas, teachers more kind than in- 
telligent, and artists’ conceptions have combined to make 
us think Jesus a kindly soul who lived to make people 
comfortable. He was not that, and He is not that. He is 
the great Spirit who wants to make people right, and will 
make them uncomfortable, clear down to the bottom of 
their hearts, if He can thereby arouse them to right- 
eousness. There is only one recorded instance of His 


1 By Rev. William Pierson Merrill, D.D., pastor of the Brick Presby- 
terian Church, New York. Christian Work. 115: 346-50. September 22, 1923. 


60 SELECTED ARTICLES 


using a whip of material cords, but often those who come 
near to Him find Him speaking words which whip and 
sting the conscience. 

When we really search the Scriptures, laying aside 
conventional and inherited ideas of the Master of us all, 
we are amazed at the moral vigor of Christ, the heat of 
His indignation, the severity of His ethical judgments. 
His words are like searchlights, and He does not shrink, 
nor will He let us slip away, until their full work of soul 
revelation has been done. 

It was my privilege recently to hear a great scholar 
read a paper on Jesus as He is presented in the first 
three Gospels. At the end of the fascinating presentation 
the outstanding characteristic was moral severity. One 
got an indelible impression of One who would not tri- 
fle with the truth, who would hew to the line wherever 
the chips might fall. Christ did come to save men and to 
give them rest; but before He can save us or give us 
rest He must make us see what we are, and desire what 
we are not, that we may be led to offer that prayer which 
always preconditions rest and salvation, 


Create in me a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within me. 


There is no more important question today for the 
Church than this: “What is fundamental or essential ac- 
cording to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?” We get 
the answer clearly and decisively in this strange saying 
about the unpardonable sin. This is the answer, coming 
in a way beyond doubt, the essential 1s the spirit. 

Christ was always poetic, never pedantic. One trouble 
with theology is that it has so earnestly tried to reduce 
His flaming messages and glowing thoughts to precise 
statements. The Gospels are poetry, appeals to the heart. 
One can get better results out of them by using a piano 
than by using the yardstick of logic. To estimate the 
Gospel of Christ in severely logical terms is one with 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 61 


judging the Sistine Madonna in terms of paint and 
canvas. 

Keeping in mind this poetic character of the thoughts 
and words of the Master, this is what we find Jesus say- 
ing in this text: that the sin beyond all others is the sin 
against the Spirit of God which is at work in the world. 
That Spirit is the spirit of helpfulness, of love, of kind- 
ness, of sacrifice, of redemption. It is the spirit through 
which He healed the poor victims of demon obsessions. 
He could not restrain Himself when the religious leaders 
of His time looked askance at that spirit in which He 
lived and worked, or talked of it disparagingly. “Say 
what you will about Me,” He cries. “Grave as that is, 
to talk against the Son of Man, it is not the worst sin. 
But to speak against the Spirit, the Spirit that loves and 
sorrows and saves, that is a sin so deep that it goes to the 
roots. If any sin is hopeless, that is the hopeless sin.” 

Is there not here evidence beyond dispute as to that 
which Christ counts most essential? With unerring in- 
sight the church as a whole, down through the ages, has 
put in the foremost place among its doctrines belief in 
Jesus Christ. It has rightly counted that which men 
think and say about the Son of Man as of supreme im- 
portance in Christian thought. And in this verse 
our Master declares that the worst sin is not to say or 
think something wrong about Him, but to take the wrong 
attitude toward the Spirit. Not any doctrine, not any 
form or order, not even Christ Himself! The spirit is the 
essential consideration; that is the one fundamental of 
Christianity. Where the spirit of Christ is, there is true 
Christianity ; where that spirit is lacking, though creeds 
be correct and though everything else be present, Christ 
and Christianity are not present. 

Do you see how emphatic that teaching is? It is 
Christ’s own statement that one may speak against the 
Son of Man, or if you want to put it in modern ‘terms, 
may deny the divinity of Christ and still not be beyond 


62 SELECTED VARTIGLERS 


hope; but he cannot speak against the Spirit which is 
incarnate in Christ, the spirit which lives in Christianity, 
the spirit which breathes in the Gospels and which gives 
them its power. One cannot deny that without deny- 
ing religion and committing a sin so deep that there is 
no ground left for hope. I beg of you, my friends, 
realize that this is not my statement, nor one made by 
liberals or Modernists or by any other party in the 
Church; it is Christ’s own clear judgment. 

I beg of you, take “at their full value these clear 
words, comparing the Son of Man and the Spirit of God 
as objects of reverence and faith. What do these words 
mean? That no doctrine, not even the great doctrine 
about Christ Himself, is so important, so really funda- 
mental, as is the Spirit of God, the spirit in which we 
must live our lives and do our work. 

We hesitate to make so bold a statement. All around 
us are voices crying out that we must make the doctrine 
of our Lord’s deity the test of a standing or falling 
church, that the unpardonable heresy 1s to have a doubt 
as to that great truth. And these voices go on to say 
that we must not only believe in the deity of our Lord, 
but that we must hold a particular theory about it, a 
specific view as to the method by which He came into hu- 
man life, or some other special phase of faith in His 
divinity. All that is of interest; all of that is important, 
most of it is very important; some of it is vital. It is 
plain truth of history that ever since Jesus came in the 
flesh, those have been most powerful and worth-while 
for the work of Christ in the world who have had a 
clear and joyous faith that God was in Him and that 
God stands forever revealed in Him. It is folly for us 
to forget that testimony of Christian history. It is 
right for us to uphold with all the vigor of our souls 
the necessity of faith in the deity of our Lord. But it is 
simply following His own estimates and judgments when 
we say that the supreme test is and always must be, not 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 63 


what we say or do about the Son of Man, always it is 
what we say and do with the Spirit of God, the spirit 
in which Christ lived and died, the spirit of our most 
holy religion. Other things are important, some of them 
enormously important; this alone is fundamental. 

Some one may protest, but did not Paul say, “Other 
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is 
Christ Jesus.” Yes, and we know that Paul there spoke 
the truth. A house built on any other foundation than 
that of full faith in Jesus Christ cannot last. But take a 
strongly founded house, and you know that down be- 
low the stone foundation, down below the concrete bases, 
at last you come to the solid rock on which the whole 
thing rests. That solid rock in the Christian religion is 
not any particular doctrine; it is the Spirit of God, of 
Christ, of our'religion. That is, that must, be, the chief 
concern of Christians and of the Church. It is Christ 
who pronounces the judgment; the only unforgivable sin 
is a sin against the Spirit. 

Some one may protest, “But you are basing a great 
conviction on a single saying.” God forbid! Go 
through the New Testament and see how the message 
that has come to us from this one text rings out from 
the whole Gospel and from much of the New Testament. 
Read through the Gospels with the question in mind, 
“What did Jesus always count the worst sin?” You will 
find the answer one with what you are finding in this 
text. Search through His sayings. You will find not a 
single case in which He tells of any one judged or con- 
demned for lack of faith in any theological doctrine, 
but vou will find a vivid picture of the day of judgment, 
where some go into life eternal and others into eternal 
death; and the test, and the only test, the absolute test, 
is the spirit in which they have lived their lives and done 
their work. Have they ministered in the name of Christ, 
or in the spirit of Christ to their fellow-men? ‘That is 
the only test. In all the Gospel teachings you will find 


64. SERCH CTERONAA HOCUS 


not one picture of a man suffering in future tofment for 
lack of doctrinal soundness; but you will find a vivid pic- 
ture of a man in the torment of hell because of lack of 
the spirit of love and kindness. Jesus once spoke of a 
certain kind of man as being “in danger of the hell of 
fire.” Who is that man? He is the one who treats his 
brother with scorn or contempt, who uses hard names 
about him. He is just a man who has lived without the 
spirit of loving kindness. 

On that very night in which our Lord gave to His 
friends the blessed and wonderful gift of the sacrament 
of the Lord’s Supper He gave also His one final test for 
His Church. Better than any other word in the whole 
Bible, it defines the true test of a standing or falling 
Church. “Hereby shall all men know that ye are My dis- 
ciples, if ye have love for one another.” 

Some one wrote to me a few days ago asking about 
the origin of the Apostles’ Creed. In reply I gave the 
facts, that there is no evidence of its existence in its 
present form earlier than the fifth century; that in a 
simpler form it dates back perhaps to the second cen- 
tury; certainly not earlier. But here, in this word about 
the spirit of love, we have a test that goes back to the 
Lord himself. If it comes to a choice as to which the 
Christian shall hold to be authoritative as a test for the 
Church, the creed which came later, or the word of the 
Lord himself, choose Christ’s test of a spirit of love. 

Turn over a few pages and see what Paul gives as 
the fundamental and essential thing. The words throng 
upon one another. “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” 
“Tf any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him 
be anathema; but grace be with all them that love our 
Lord Jesus Christ with a love incorruptible.” There is 
one question which Paul clearly would put, even more 
searching than the question, “What do you believe about 
Christ?” and that is “Do you love Christ?’ Nowhere 
has he spoken more decisively about the test of one’s 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 65 


Christianity than in the words, “If any man have not 
the spirit of Christ, he is none of His.” His great an- 
swer is in the chapter on love. “Faith, hope, these,” he 
says, “are noble; but even these, like all other gifts— 
faith that could remove mountains, hope that will not 
be ashamed, orthodox faith, millennial hope—all of these 
are less in value and in importance than the spirit of 
love.” Of course, Paul says, as we should say, that 
these other things are not at all unimportant. They are 
immensely important. But only one thing is fundamen- 
tal, to live and act and serve and sacrifice in the spirit of 
love. That is Christianity, as nothing else is, and all 
doctrines and forms and everything else are of subsidi- 
ary importance. That alone is primary. 

My friends, this is what the Church must say and 
mean. It is time for frank dealing, for taking a bold 
stand with the Lord Jesus and His great Apostle, though 
that stand be against the world. It will not be against 
the world. The world is waiting for a church that dares 
put in the first place the spirit of Christ. The Church 
is needing to be set free from bondage to secondary 
things, to serve the Lord who is the Spirit. This great 
word, that the spirit is the only fundamental, is indeed 
“the great word that makes all things new.’ There lie 
back of us long, hard periods through which the Church 
slowly came to a formulation of its faith. Out from 
that time have come majestic creeds. They are treas- 
ures which the Church should ever hold with reverence 
and use with joy; but it is time that we should leave that 
well-done work and turn to our own work of today. The 
Church today, in most of its branches, cares too much 
about particular doctrines, is too greatly interested in 
trying to say over again and again what the men of the 
past ages said so well. We cannot ignore beliefs and 
intellectual convictions. We must think them, and re- 
think them, state them and restate them; but it is a 
pitiful thing when there comes to power in the Church 


66 SELECTED ARTICLES 


the spirit that sees as its greatest task pushing us all 
back, back, until we land in a particular corner, hemmed 
in by minute doctrinal statements. It is time for the 
Church to teach men how to be free in the grace and 
glory of God’s spirit. 

We face a world today that is in desperate need, that 
can be saved in but one way, through the grace of God 
which is in Christ. It is time we followed Christ by tak- 
ing His judgments as the true ones. We must rise up 
and live and walk in the spirit, counting that the first es- 
sential. 

Is this attitude bold? Is it going too far? One can- 
not go too far on the right road, and above all things, 
the Church today needs boldness. We must stop using 
our beliefs as fences to hold men in, and use them as 
rails on which to get forward. Once more sounds out 
the call, “Leave all and follow Me;” and part of what 
we must leave, if we are to follow the Christ who alone 
can save the world, is our overdone interest in doctrine. 
It is not that we should put away our creeds, but that we 
should cease talking about them so much or thinking 
that the defense of the creed is the primary concern of 
the Church, that we should assume the truth to which 
the Church has given so many years of painstaking 
thought, and welcome all honorable servants of Christ 
who heartily affirm the great elements of Christian faith, 
and then put our whole soul and life and heart and 
strength into the task of making the spirit of Christ 
and His gospel the controlling power in the life of man. 

Before anyone here dismisses this plea as overbold, 
or as going too far, I beg him to ask himself, “Is this 
what one preacher says? Or is it what Christ says?” 
Who is it, after all, who declares to us, “Though I have 
all faith, but have not love, Iam nothing?” It is not some 
modern preacher; it is Christ’s greatest interpreter. 
Who is it that says to us, “By this shall all men know 
that ye are My disciples, if ye have love?” Who is it 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 67 


that says that the one unpardonable sin is the sin against 
the Spirit, that the one unpardonable word is a word 
against the Spirit? It is not some modern preacher; it 
is the Lord of us all, the Lord who is the Spirit, who 
says these words. To a Church divided over lesser 
things and thoughts, a Church too weak to do its sav- 
ing work in the world because so much of its interest 
is given to making secondary matters primary, sounds 
out the stern, sorrowful question, “Why call ye me Lord, 
Lord, and do not the things that I say?” And what 
has He said, in all the wide range of the Gospel, with 
greater emphasis, with more solemn finality, than that 
the one thing that is absolutely fundamental, the only 
thing without which man or church is hopeless, the one 
and only absolute test which He left for our Christianity, 
is that we live and walk and work and speak and serve 
and sacrifice in the spirit of love in which He lived and 


died. 


FUNDAMENTALISM, MODERNISM, AND GOD’? 


Manifestly, the editorial page of a current periodical 
is no place in which to make an exhaustive or even an 
exact treatise upon so vast and many-sided a theme as 
that of the meaning of God. The limited space at our dis- 
posal, the mood of both writer and reader, and the pur- 
pose of such a periodical forbid the adoption of the 
method and technique of academic discussion or more 
ambitious authorship. Yet there is a service which, in 
view of the heat and confusion of these days, a journal 
of religious opinion may render to its readers. That is 
to attempt to sketch in a few rough, broad strokes its 
own interpretation of the controversy, not merely in 
respect of those details which are thrust into prominence 
by events, but in respect of the elemental issues them- 
selves. The conditions and conceptions of life have so 


1 From Christian Century. 41: 358-61, 392-4. March 20 and 27, 1924, 


110 SELECTEDVARTICLES 


view of this vision, the squabbling bishop and rector are 
as if they were two French nobles in the days of the 
Revolution, quarreling about their pedigrees as they were 
riding in the tumbrel to the guillotine. 


Part II 
THE BIBLE 


70 SELECTED ARTICLES 


doctrine. The line between conservatism and liberalism 
is a shaded line—indeed there is no “line between” at all. 
The terms represent rather the range of intellectual dif- 
ferences within a common fellowship. But fundamen- 
talism is an exclusive fellowship, a cult by itself. 
Its leaders define it as “militant conservatism,’ by which 
they mean, without apology, “conservatism” waging a 
war of expulsion upon all who do not accept certain 
doctrines. Modernism, on its side, is no less definite in 
its aims than fundamentalism, but it absolutely disavows 
the spirit of intolerance which fundamentalism treats as 
a virtue. The Modernist gladly takes into his fellowship 
the most extreme conservative and would extend his hand 
to Fundamentalists as well. Indeed, it is of the essence 
of his position so to do. It is the genius of fundamental- 
ism, however, that it sees the implacable conflict between 
its system and modernism, and that it could not match 
the tolerance of modernism by an equal tolerance without 
thereby ceasing to be fundamentalism. 

But if Modernists make no issue with Fundamen- 
talists as to personal fellowship and churchly coopera- 
tion, it is at last waking up to discern the mutual exclu- 
siveness of the two systems. Both cannot be inscribed 
on the same Christian banner. If fundamentalism be 
true, Christianity is one kind of religion. If modern- 
ism be true, Christianity is another and radically differ- 
ent kind of religion. The issue between the two 1s 
sharply drawn. No outcome is conceivable save the 
gradual penetration of one by the other, or the disrup- 
tion of the Christian church into two rival faiths. For 
our Own part we have little fear of so great a tragedy 
as another schism in Protestantism. Modernism has 
already made such contributions to the thinking of 
churchly leadership; the scientific point of view has 
become so well established in secular culture and practical 
affairs; and the ill-adjustments of a survival-church to 
changing world conditions are producing such disquiet 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 71 


and embarrassment to religion that fundamentalism is, 
as we see it, incapable of winning its war of expulsion 
and disruption. The crisis to which religion has come re- 
quires utter candor and honesty in discussion. In this 
respect Fundamentalists excel Modernists, though the 
reserve and obscurantism of many convinced Modernists 
is balanced by the intolerance of the Fundamentalists— 
so neither side may boast! The time has come, so it seems 
to us, to take the issue out of class room and professional 
conference and discuss it in the hearing of all sorts and 
conditions of men. It is vital now to say that some 
things are so, and that some things are not so. As far 
as possible—and it is by no means an absolute rule—our 
yea should be yea and our nay nay. In this spirit The 
Christian Century purposes to consider the basic issues, 
beginning at this time with the fundamentalist view and 
the modern view of God. 
Berk 

The basic distinction between the God of tradition 
and the God of modernism is found in the difference be- 
tween two sets of mental images with which God is con- 
ceived by the two groups. Behind our elaborate the- 
ologies and creedal systems there lie certain mental pic- 
tures, more or less vague, more or less distinct, which 
prompt and uphold our theories. These images are 1m- 
plicit in all our thinking about so vast a theme as the 
meaning of God. Our differences are not logical pri- 
marily, nor theological but imaginative. We may have 
ever so massive and finely reasoned a theological struc- 
ture, and we may debate this and that detail of the total 
argument and come out no nearer together than at the 
beginning. In a debate on God the minds of the Fun- 
damentalist and the Modernist do not meet. To oppose 
system against system involves endless and sterile dispu- 
tation. Our essential differences are in our more or less 
unconscious foundations, not in our conscious superstruc- 
tures. These foundations of theology are for the most 


72 SELECTED, ARTICLES 


part hidden; they are not logical, but psychological, not 
metaphysical but naive, not expressed but implied. The 
essential differences in our sophisticated thought about 
God arise out of the differences in the unsophisticated 
material of imagination with which our thinking begins. 
If it were possible to put one’s hand through the tangled 
web of finely woven theological theory and take hold of 
the uncriticized imagery that is concealed beneath and 
behind it, we should have in our possession the data upon 
which to base an intelligent choice between the God of 
fundamentalism and the God of modernism. 

If this be true, it should carry a certain comfort to the 
reader of these words who, though desiring with deep 
earnestness to follow a discussion on this greatest of all 
themes, yet even now is dreading lest the discussion take 
him into deep waters of logic and metaphysics which 
either his unfitness or his impatience forbids his entering. 
Such a reader should know at the outset that an exam- 
ination of the logical structures of the two theologies 
under consideration would neither be appropriate in this 
place nor profitable in any place for the purpose we have 
set before us. An examination of the imaginative pre- 
suppositions of the two views of God is a much simpler 
undertaking, as it is, in our judgment, a more enlighten- 
ing one. The fundamentalist view of God arises out of 
the imagery of a spatial gulf, fixed between man and 
God. God’s coming to man is from somewhere. His 
abode is yonder, or up there. He is one among many 
beings—albeit the highest, the supreme—within a spatial 
universe. 

A literal reading of the Scripture, of course, provides 
ample support for this way of thinking of God. The 
creation story is anthropomorphic in its entire frame- 
work. Its God is a particular being among other beings 
operating within a spatial situation. The appearances of 
God to men of ancient times are described as visits of 
man with man. The imagery of a spatial heaven, or its 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 73 


equivalent, as the dwelling place of God dominates all 
ancient thought of God, no less of Old Testament than 
of pagan thought. Miracles were the intervention of 
God from the outside, the operation of a deus ex ma- 
china. Revelation was the deliverance of truth to the 
mind of man by a divine being who operated through 
some inscrutable process outside the normal processes of 
human psychology. In the comprehension and accept- 
ance of such “revealed” truth the ordinary processes of 
thinking were irrelevant. The ascension of Jesus, the 
expectation of his return, his present reign at God’s 
right hand, and the holy city of his final triumph all are 
supported by the framework of spatial relations between 
the divine and human. 

This spatial dualism is the imaginative substance out 
of which traditional theology has been built. Even in 
its most abstract and highly logical form the subcon- 
scious datum of traditional theology has been the image 
of a gulf with God on one side and man on the other. 
Fundamentalism is the heir of this implicit imagery of 
traditional theology. The clash between modernism and 
fundamentalism is primarily due to the inability of minds 
whose thinking has been nourished in the scientific ideas 
of the past three-quarters of a century to build a system 
upon this spatial, anthropomorphic dualism. The Mod- 
ernist squarely fronts the theology built upon the imagery 
of tradition and declares that no such God exists. With 
La Place he searches the spatial heavens with his tele- 
scope and returns to say that he has found no God there. 
The imaginative stuff of the Modernist’s theology is 
found elsewhere. He thinks of God in the imagery of 
concrete moral experience: He does not look away, but 
within, to find God. And he strives to build his theology 
upon the imaginative material furnished him by his own 
spiritual life. Looking within, he finds God. And he 
finds also a unique point of view from which to look out 
upon the universe. What he see when he looks from 


74 SLLECTED FARAIGLES 


within outward is not a God spatially related to man and 
other beings, but a universe which is itself a living thing. 
The God whom he discovers is not “outside” of anything, 
but all things and all selves and all processes are instinct 
with his presence. 

Thus the Modernist cannot rest in any materialistic 
imagery of God. Yet he goes back to the Scripture—the 
same Scripture from which the traditionalist derives his 
anthropomorphic dualism—and by a law of affinity those 
words which define God in non-spatial, non-anthropo- 
morphic terms, leap from the classic pages and cling to 
his mind. God is love—God is a spirit—in Him we live 
and move and have our being—God is light—Is not my 
dwelling with the humble in heart?—Know ye not that 
ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God 
dwelleth in you?—As thou, Father, art in me and I in 
thee, that they also may be one in us. Scriptures like 
these come trooping to the Modernist’s mind to inter- 
pret and confirm his instinct for finding in the realm of 
spiritual experience the imagery out of which to build 
his theory of God. And he is continually meeting in the 
same Scriptures words of another but kindred sort which 
interpret the universe itself. “My Father worketh even 
until now—The whole creation groaneth and travaiieth 
together in pain until now ... waiting for the realization 
of the sons of God —AIl things work together for good 
to those who love God.” The universe is no dead matter 
upon which a mighty God, invading it from His outside 
abode, has left the occasional print of His majestic feet. 
It is rather a forth-putting of His unfailing, living, gra- 
cious presence, and all its processes and laws are but 
the habits of His creative labor. 

In thus presenting the traditional view of God in 
contrast with the modern view, it is far from our inten- 
tion to imply that the Scriptures which we have quoted 
as interpreting the modernist view are not also accepted 
by the Fundamentalist, just as it is equally far from our 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 75 


intention to imply that the Scriptures which underlie the 
Fundamentalist’s imagery are denied by the Modernists 
Ask a Fundamentalist if he believes that God is love. 
If he is not affronted at your impertinence he replies 
that, of course, he does. Ask a Christian Modernist if 
he believes in the creation story of Genesis. If he is 
not affronted by your impertinence, he will reply that, of 
course, he does. The difference between these two is 
not that one accepts while the other rejects this or that 
Seripture, but in the use which each makes of this or 
that sort of Scripture as the basis of his conception of 
God. The Modernist has his own interpretation of the 
anthropomorphic Scriptures and the Fundamentalist has 
his own interpretation of the unalloyed ethical or spirit- 
ual Scriptures. For the Modernist the passages contain- 
ing anthropomorphic and spatial dualism have their 
place not at the center but on the periphery of his theo- 
logical interest; just as those passages like “God is love” 
have their place not at the center but on the periphery 
of the Fundamentalist’s theological interest. To the 
Fundamentalist love is an attribute of God. To; \ 
the Modernist love is the very essence of God. The} \ 
reader will understand that the term “love” is used here} ht 
as typical of all the spiritual realities suggested by the \ 
group of Scriptures cited above, and is so used to avoid 
circumlocution. The Fundamentalist makes love an or- 
namental feature of a structure erected out of quite an- 
other sort of material. The Modernist can find no 
other sort of material out of which to erect the struc- 
ture save love itself. Ethical and mystical experience 
flings out upon its banks the suggestions of God which 
the modernist mind is engaged in gathering up and 
assembling into a theology, a picture of that divine 
being who is 
. closer than breathing, 
Nearer than hands and feet. 


Sy 


76 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Other aspects of the difference between fundamental- 
ism’s God and the God of modernism must await atten- 
tion in another issue. 


II. 


Our discussion of the fundamentalist and modernist 
views of God began last week with a consideration of the 
two sets of imagery with which the two sets of minds 
begin their thinking. Fundamentalism, heir of the cos- 
mology of the pre-scientific age, thinks of God in an 1m- 
agery that is spatial and anthropomorphic. A spatial 
gulf is fixed between the divine and the human. God’s 
dealings with man take place across this gulf either by 
direct divine invasion of the human world or, in His ab- 
sence, according to a “plan” which He revealed on the 
occasions of His special appearances on the human scene. 
The Modernist finds the material for his imagery in ac- 
tual human experience, and is unable to use the images 
that imply the spatial dualism of God and man. This 
contrast of the spatial against the spiritual is, it was 
held, essential to an understanding of the inability of the 
two sets of minds to meet. Fundamentalism feels that 
the God of modernism is pale, vague, impersonal; while 
modernism says straight out that the God described or 
assumed by fundamentalism does not exist at all. 

There is another contrast between the two concep- 
tions of God equally sharp and equally important. The 
traditional idea, of which fundamentalism is the heir, is 
shot through with legalistic implications based upon a 
monarchical imagery. In times when political authority 
was vested in a monarch whose power was underived and 
irresponsible and whose majesty was supported by a lux- 
urious court and universal reverence, it was inevitable 
that this most august fact of human society should reflect 
itself in men’s thoughts of God. With all men’s minds 
running toward the king in servile devotion it was but 
a step beyond the king to the idea of God as the poten- 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 77 


tate of the universe. Thus from the tribal deity who con- 
tested his sovereignty with other tribal deities, to the one 
King of Kings whose glory filled the heavens, the im- 
agery of the monarch and his court has formed the core 
and basis of man’s conceptions of God. This imagery has 
been so long established in human thought and has so 
woven itself into the ritual and poetry of religion, and 
has so dominated all attempts of man’s reason to con- 
struct a theological system, that it is most difficult for 
faith to shake itself free of it. 

Fundamentalism accepts this imaginative framework 
without criticism, and more or less naively builds its the- 
ology upon it. Modernism tries to free its thoughts 
from this monarchical imagery and all the legalism that 
grows out of it. This is not an easy thing to do. How- 
ever successful one may be in freeing his theoretical con- 
ception of God from the influence of anthropomorphic 
monarchism, when one turns toward God in the attitude 
of devotion and worship there is an almost irresistible 
tendency to conceive him through this ages-old imagery. 
It is not strange that it is so. For in addition to the sur- 
vival impetus of this all but universal way of thinking of 
God in terms of the Supreme Ruler of the universe, and 
the courtly implications of our worship systems, there is 
the fact of the perennial presence of childhood in the 
world for whom the God idea must be clothed with an- 
thropomorphic imagery in order to give it content at all. 
Probably this ever-present need of childhood for a sen- 
suous picture of God accounts for the inertia of the great 
masses of men, even in our more highly cultivated so- 
Cieties, in responding to the claim of a higher and more 
ethical view of deity. 

The truth is that the religious thinking of the great 
majority of men has. suffered arrested development. 
They have grown up, but their view of God has not 
grown up. Their cosmology and their sociology have un- 
dergone a revolution at the hands of modern science, but 


78 SELECTED ARTICLES 


the stuff of their theology continues to be a set of im- 
ages taken from the world order and the social order 
which science has abandoned. Carrying about with them 
their childhood conceptions of God it is not strange that 
they are an easy prey to all sorts of doctrines and sys- 
tems and expectations which mean nothing at all to those 
who have tried to bring their thinking of God up to the 
moral level of their other thinking. They think of God 
as a monarch enthroned in a far-away heaven issuing 
decrees and laws and making “covenants” with men. 
His “will” is revealed in a sacred text whose supernatural 
origin attests its “authority.” This mighty potentate hav- 
ing revealed his laws—which had the effect of making 
yet more pronounced man’s conscious helplessness to 
save himself from sin—at last devised a “plan of re- 
demption” whereby his son, the heavenly prince, was 
sent from the court of heaven to abide awhile among 
men and here enact a drama of divine grace. His birth, 
his death, his resurrection and his return to the heavenly 
court were scenes in the divine spectacle by which man 
was to be convinced of God’s purpose and power to save. 

The acceptance of the record of this drama as a true 
revealment of the divine will put the soul in the way of 
salvation. Innumerable variations have been played 
upon this central theme in the history of Christian the- 
ology. Harsh doctrines of human depravity, of divine 
vengeance, of the sacrifice of Christ as the purchase price 
given to Satan by God for the ransom of man’s soul, and 
many others grew up with the retelling of the story in 
the centuries following its historic enactment; and like- 
wise beautiful doctrines of divine love and yearning, of 
the princely Actor’s gracious character and marvelous 
speech, of the quality of life which resulted in those who 
accepted the “plan’’ and many others were developed 
upon the central theme. But the body of the drama, 
its essence and structure, were the conception of a regal 
God, dwelling remote from man in a heavenly court and 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 79 


from there devising a drama of salvation to be enacted at 
a definite spot in history before the eyes of men and car- 
ried down the ages with power through their testimony 
of what they had seen and heard. 

It is here that modernism pauses. It cannot think in 
this imagery. It cannot conceive such a God. It finds 
no monarchical deity in the universe, nor can it postulate 
one by faith. A new feeling about monarchs and poten- 
tates has seized modern mankind, a new moral insight 
has been vouchsafed which penetrates the unreality of 
the whole idea of kingship. The majesty of kings and 
potentates has toppled amid men’s widespread disil- 
lusionment. This insight has been signalized by the birth 
of democracy, whose coming has broken the ancient 
spell which the glamour of kings and their courts threw 
over the thoughts of men. The disillusionment reflects 
itself in the way men think about God. No more can 
men who think critically allow the imagery of a heavenly 
monarch to determine their thoughts of spiritual reality. 
There is no such God, men are now calmly bold to say. 
And this they say not only without fear of incurring 
the divine wrath but with the vivid sense that in denying 
existence to him they are doing honor to the God who 
really is. If monarchy in human relationships is in- 
ferior and unethical, a monarchical God is also inferior 
and unethical. And those doctrines concerning God’s 
will, his covenants, his modes of operation, his plans 
which grow out of the monarchical conception of the 
divine being are, so far forth, fictitious, irrelevant and 
unethical. 

So the modern mind is turning to democracy for im- 
agery with which to conceive God. Just as democracy 
has stripped from the monarch not only the insignia and 
glamour but the realities of sovereignty and lodged them 
in the people’s will, so this same movement of the 
human spirit is turning from the pseudo-majesty of a 
monarch-God to seek for the divine presence and pur- 


Fan thes An 2 


80 SELECTED ARTICLES 


pose in the living world of men. We stand only on the 
threshold of this great quest. Whither it leads no one 
yet clearly sees. With what ideas we shall arrive at the 
end of the day none may guess. But the conviction that 
our feet are in the right path is profound and inspiring. 
To let go the imagery of monarchy and to seek for God 
under the imagery of democracy stirs the blood with high 
expectation. Gone are all arbitrary decrees, all the lonely, 
self-contained glory, all the arm’s length reach of God 
across a vast chasm to set up a plan of salvation. Gone, 
too, is all dramatized grace. For modernism, God’s life 
is eternally self-identified with man’s. Christ’s real hu- 
manity is beyond dispute. The gulf of spatial dualism 
and of caste dualism between God and man is obliterated. 
In terms of immanent justice, of inherent truth, of gra- 
cious purpose, of creative beauty, of love sharing all our 
sorrow and hope and sin—yea, sharing our sin!—in 
thoughts like these men are striving to draw a picture of 
God as the eternal Democrat whose majesty is sym- 
bolized by no courtly throne but by a basin and towel. 
This God toward whom the modern spirit is feeling 
its way is not far off, not up there, but within our life. 
It is as if we were on the front line of His purposes, and 
as if He were making progress through our loyalty and 
our valor. He sees through our eyes, hears through our 
ears, works through our hands. He has a vast task to 
do and needs us to help Him. He fails when we fail. He 
wins when we win. We can disappoint Him. We can 
thwart Him. We can make His achievements possible. 
He feeds every faint impulse toward good; indeed our 
good impulses are His prompting. It is not just our im- 
pulses but His will that urges us to holiness. Everything 
that is good in the world, the forest and flowers, the hills 
and the sea, the devices of industry, the discoveries of 
science and the beneficent institutions of society are the 
work of His hands. And all evil represents the incom- 
pleteness or the failure of His work. He has pain and 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 81 


grief in every impure act of every man, in every immoral, 
ugly, unsocial, lustful, brutal deed. It grieves Him be- 
cause it involves Him. He is not outside of the sin re- 
garding it vicariously, but inside it, deflected for the time 
by it, stained by it Himself, standing partner with the 
sinner in his sin. He does not flee the sinner, or send 
some one else to suffer with the sinner, but He remains 
and shares the sinner’s sin until thereby together they 
cast out the sin and heal its wound. 

No such truth has ever come to man equal in im- 
portance to that of a God who abides eternally in our hu- 
man life as Jesus tarried with us in his short span of 
years. God is doing eternally what Jesus did in the nar- 
row limits of time. He is no remote God, wrapping 
His regal garments about Him in inaccessible isolation 
while His son acts out a drama of grace. But all the 
while God is among us and Christ is the first fruit of 
what he would do for all. 

Great and deep are the problems that arise here. The 
problem of transcendence and immanence, of the om- 
nipotence and the limitation of God, of the responsibility 
of an immanent God for evils that spring out of the 
heart of nature, like earthquakes and storms, as well as 
for those which inhere in the human scene in which he 
shares—these problems are beside our present purpose 
to discuss. Our teachers are themselves working upon 
them with the diligence of a great passion. We are 
hardly past the stage of insight. The gathering of the 
data and the construction and the proof remain for the 
future. But that mankind is definitely turning its 
thoughts away from the kind of God whose dealings 
with men may be stated in the imagery of monarchy is 
the belief of modernism. Here, definitely, is the source 
of the difference between modernism and fundamen- 
talism. The two systems begin with two Gods. What 
one God may logically be expected to do the other God 
may not do. Therefore the systems clash. Therefore 


82 SELECTED 7ARTICLES 


the debate over this detail or that doctrine is unavailing 
and sterile until the issue leads back to this basic diver- 
gence in the two points of view. 

And as for anthropomorphism, no one imagines 
that we shall be able in our finiteness to outgrow it. The 
soul’s need of symbols as carriers of feeling and pur- 
pose 1s ineradicable, but whereas fundamentalism con- 
sents to utilize the symbols of monarchy which the so- 
cial ethics of our time has discredited, modernism insists 
that our symbolism, for moral reasons as well as in the 
interest of truth, must be kept up to the level of our 
highest ethical thinking. And the imagery of the Father, 
which Jesus filled with immortal radiance, remains still 
the richest and purest medium of faith and devotion. 
This conception modernism insists upon taking seriously, 
building its theology upon it and testing all other the- 
ologies by it. 


FUNDAMENTALISM, MODERNISM AND 
Clan WN ras dh 


The key to the essential difference between the fun- 
damentalist view of Jesus and the modernist view is 
found in the dissimilar attitudes with which the two types 
of mind approach Him. Fundamentalism comes to the 
figure of Jesus by the dogmatic route. Modernism ap- 
proaches him as a fact of history. To the Fundamen- 
talist the significance of Jesus’ personality is interpreted 
by a certain doctrinal framework into which the historic 
figure is made to fit. This framework consists of the 
conception of an infallible Bible, a “plan of salvation” 
which engaged the divine mind from the beginning of 
time and was revealed by various stages prior to the ap- 
pearance of Jesus, a series of predictions pointing to cer- 
tain events in the career of Jesus by fulfilling which at 
His appearance He could be identified as the promised 


1From Christian Century. 41: 495-7, April 17, 1924. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 83 


one and His place in the divine scheme attested, His 
miraculous birth of a virgin, the miracles which He Him- 
self wrought, His death on the cross, His resurrection, 
His ascension and His promised return to earth to con- 
summate His mission. Here is an a@ priori framework 
into which the figure of Jesus is fitted and by which He 
is to be explained. The system has as its background 
the messianic concepts with which the Jewish mind of 
Jesus’ day was occupied, plus certain other concepts de- 
rived from the writings of Paul. 

If one reads the life story of Jesus with this group of 
ideas in the foreground of his thinking he is able to com- 
prehend the view of Jesus held by fundamentalism. It is 
necessary, according to fundamentalism, to hold the 
framework fixed and indisputable in all its details, as 
much so as is the historic outline of the figure within 
the frame. This conception of Christ is based upon the 
assumption that those to whom He originally came, those 
who therefore were His first interpreters, perceived and 
interpreted Him with final and unchangeable categories, 
and that it is necessary, if we are to take Jesus at all, 
that we shall take their framework of interpretation also. 
Thus their framework has become a system of control 
by which a certain way of thinking about Jesus has been 
invested with the same vitality and authority as that 
which is imputed to Jesus Himself. 

Modernism, from its side, approaching Jesus with ut- 
ter reverence for His personality, looks with skepticism 
upon the finality of the system of concepts with which 
His first interpreters sought to understand Him. It asks 
questions about these concepts. It wonders whether the 
category of messiahship as held by later Judaism is 
either universally valid or universally necessary in order 
to understand Jesus. It asks whether the a priori con- 
ception of a scheme of salvation, a drama enacted upon 
a divinely ordered stage transcending the levels of our 
common human action, is either necessary or usable for 


84 | SELECTED ARTICLES 


men today. As for specific predictive prophecies it defi- 
nitely says that there were no such, and that what have 
been claimed to be such are survivals in early Christian 
thinking of the forced and fantastic rabbinical methods 
of dealing with the ancient scripture. With respect to the 
virgin birth, modernism raises the question of the origin 
of the belief, whether it was an authentic literal recital of 
facts originally from the lips of Mary herself, or a later 
poetic creation, prompted by the impulse to honor Jesus 
by giving Him an origin above that of natural human 
birth. Of His death and resurrection, modernism rejects 
every dramatic interpretation and insists that their mean- 
ing and significance are to be found by seeing them as 
parts of the total fabric of the altogether real life of Jesus 
of Nazareth. 

That is to say, modernism, in its historical approach 
to Jesus assumes that the figure of Christ as a fact of 
history may be loosened from that framework of inter- 
pretation peculiar to the mind of the age and place in 
which He historically appeared and reinterpreted for 
every age and every place in forms and categories ever 
fresh and vital. This is an abstract and extreme way of 
stating modernism’s point of view. It may seem to imply 
that modernism definitely rejects the entire traditional 
interpretation of Jesus, but such is not necessarily the 
case. It simply holds that the historical framework of 
interpretation belongs to a different order from the fact 
interpreted, and insists that wherever in the interest of 
truth the classic interpretation needs to be rejected or 
modified it may be done without lessening the greatness 
or discounting the authority of Jesus Himself. It is not 
necessary, that is to say, for Christ to walk through all 
history wearing the vestments with which men clothed 
His figure who saw Him first. The universal appeal 
which He makes to mankind will prompt them to invest 
_ His figure with ever fresh meanings by which His unique 
influence and authority may continue to be exercised upon 
their lives. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 85 


Every reader familiar with the principle of appercep- 
tion in modern psychology will readily understand this 
difference between fundamentalism and modernism. 
Modernism protests that it is both unnecessary and 1im- 
possible to take over bodily the apperception mass of 
early Christianity. There is nothing necessarily divine 
or authoritative or final about this apperception mass. 
And it is our first duty, says modernism, conceptually to 
separate the historic fact of Christ from the implications 
of the early apperception of Him and to interpret Him 
in the terms of our own apperception. No, says funda- 
mentalism; the early interpretation is inseparable from 
the historic fact interpreted; the apperception of Jesus 
by those who saw Him first was divine, authoritative and 
final; it cannot be even conceptually separated from the 
fact of Him without disloyalty ; it must therefore be kept 
intact as a system of control over the historic fact of 
Christ, and itself made co-equal with His personality as 
an object of faith. 

This is the root difference between fundamentalism 
and modernism as to their respective views of Christ. 
If we confine our consideration of modernism to Chris- 
tian modernism, in the evangelical sense, as we do in 
these chapters, it is clear that in its profession of faith 
in the historic person named Jesus Christ modernism 
holds a “Christology” that is every whit as “high” as 
that of fundamentalism, though it does not state its pro- 
fession in the terms employed by fundamentalism. In 
loosening the figure of Jesus from its older framework 
modernism provides a framework that exalts the figure 
no less than does the frame handed down by tradition, 
albeit the modernist frame is of another design. How 
then does modernism approach Jesus? It tries to rid its 
path of all dogmatic prepossessions, and by historical 
investigation and criticism to set free the actual person 
of Christ so that He may stand forth and speak for Him- 
self. This it has succeeded in doing during the past 
half century with a singleness of purpose and thorough- 


86 SELECTED, ARTICLES 


ness of method that have given our generation a more 
realistic understanding of the historic figure of Christ 
than any generation has enjoyed since the last apostle 
died. The result of this vast labor in archaeology and 
history and literary criticism has been to strip away 
many accretions of the centuries and to give men of our 
world the virgin sense of meeting Jesus for the first time. 

And the significant thing is that this scholarly pro- 
cess, controlled not by sentiment but by the scientific spirit 
of the search for objective fact, has resulted not only in 
an intensified interest in the person of Jesus but in a 
marvelous enhancement of His significance for mankind. 
There has never been a time in Christian history when 
the warm presence of Jesus in the hearts of men and the 
urgent mandate of His will in the consciences of men 
were so vividly felt and so gladly acknowledged as right 
now. And yet there was never a time when the tradi- 
tional apologetic on His behalf was so unsatisfying. The 
old framework by which the divinity of Jesus has been 
envisaged and demonstrated is either rejected or re- 
earded with indifference by virtually all typically mod- 
ern minds, whether learned or unlearned. But Christ 
Himself, surviving the old thought systems which have 
lost their vitality, 1s more vital than ever. For with the 
freeing of the historical Jesus from the clutter of ecclesi- 
astical ritualism and Christian dogma, men seem to see 
a figure whom they cannot leave in the framework of the 
dead past; He seems to demand the fresh investiture of 
His person with the forms and patterns of modern life. 

Modernism has not yet fashioned such an interpreta- 
tion of Him. We have no rationalized apologetic that 
can be set over against the framework of Jewish messian- 
ism and traditional orthodoxy. We are too near our new 
discovery of Him. The shock of His so recent coming 
among us is both absorbing and confusing. It is as if 
our age were another Sea of Galilee, and while we were 
engaged busily in mending our nets on the shore, Jesus 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 87 


stood beside us and bade us leave all and follow Him. 
So startling is His modern coming! Our surprise is like 
that of the sons of Zebedee. We do not yet know what 
to make of Him. But the same confused motives and 
the same wistful yielding to His call mark our present 
contact with Him as they marked the initial contact of 
those whom He met at the seaside long ago. The parallel 
is profoundly apt. For the really vital relation of Jesus 
to modern life can best be stated in terms analogous to 
those of the Galilean and Judean ministry. Who He is 
is hidden from us. Not only does He not urge upon us 
any title or definition of His person, but we as yet 
have no impulse to label or explain Him. We are too 
deeply drawn and held by Him, by the charm and dignity 
of His person, by the cryptic translucence of His speech, 
by the sense that here in His spirit and on His lips is the 
answer to all the problems and needs of our world. 
Mayhap, some day, two or three of His closest dis- 
ciples will go with Him to another Caesarea Philippi and 
He will be transfigured before their eyes. There will 
then begin the formulation of a grand explanation of 
His personality—who He is, and what His place in the 
vast evolutionary process of humanity. And mayhap 
from some fiery-tongued Pentecost the insight vouch- 
safed to the elect two or three at Caesarea will be spread 
abroad as a conquering gospel through all the world. 
But to that stage we have not yet come. Ours is the 
more modest, the more human—perhaps it is also the 
more. ineffable—lot to walk with Him through fields of 
corn and city streets, to sit in temple porches or on the 
lilied hillside, while He talks to us of the coming of His 
kingdom of justice and truth and peace. We listen, 
charmed and convinced—yet not understanding! 
Fundamentalism says that modernism lacks definite- 
ness of doctrine. To the truth of which charge modern- 
ism makes ready confession. And it adds that it is better 
far to follow Christ though unable to explain Him, 
while waiting upon the Father in heaven to reveal an 


88 SELECTEDVARTICLES 


explanation, than to accept from flesh and blood an ex- 
planation that is already dead or one that is premature. 
This unhurried theological pace of modernism which so 
exasperates the lawyers and pharisees is as natural as 
the contentment of the twelve while Jesus was with them. 
His present authority was never in doubt. It was not 
an authority that flowed from some accepted doctrine or 
explanation of His person. It had no legalistic or meta- 
physical sanction. It was de facto. He simply exercised 
it. They simply felt it and yielded to it. Why should it 
be otherwise now? As a matter of fact, it is not other- 
wise. Those who are taking Jesus most seriously in the 
really serious business of life—those who are trying to 
follow Him in industry, in statecraft, in international re- 
lations and in all avenues and areas of the social order— 
are less concerned to explain His person than to under- 
stand His mind, more desirous of yielding to His author- 
ity than of philosophising about His divinity. In this, 
according to the teaching of Jesus Himself about doing 
the will of God as a way of knowing the doctrine, mod- 
ernism would seem to be more truly Christian than fun- 
damentalism. 

But modernism makes a still further reply. Why, it 
asks, should those who follow Christ be so concerned 
with Him as a problem to be explained? Why not accept 
Him for what He is, the supreme moral fact of our 
human world? Fundamentalism says that we cannot get 
to the moral fact of Him except through the doctrine— 
through a literally infallible Bible which tells the story of 
Him, through a divinely revealed messianic dogma which 
determines His place in history, through a miraculous 
birth which certifies that this is the one who was prom- 
ised as the redeemer of Israel, through miracles of His 
own working and through the resurrection of His phys- 
ical body from the tomb. Fundamentalism says that if 
we weaken this framework at any point, the figure within 
the frame will surely disappear. But modernism says 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 89 


that this simply is not so. We do as a matter of fact 
reach the majestic presence of Jesus without the aid of 
all this paraphernalia of dogma. Indeed, His presence 
and His authority were never so vitally acknowledged as 
since men began to doubt or lose interest in these dog- 
mas. | 

So modernism asks again, why turn Jesus into a 
problem? After all, even on the basis of orthodoxy, there 
is something ironical in all this elaborate Christology with 
which the church has engaged itself since the beginning. 
God is really the problem. Is there a God? What is 
His nature? How may I know Him and serve Him? 
These are the real problems of life and of religion. And 
to them Jesus is the answer! Yet traditional religion has 
not only made of Him its chief problem but has actually 
sought to solve Him in terms of a primary problem! 
This is precisely what the age-long controversy over the 
divinity of Christ means—an attempt to settle one prob- 
lem by translating it into the terms of a greater problem. 
The real issue in religion is not the divinity of Christ, 
but the Christianity of God. God is the great “X” in 
the equation of life and Christ is the given quantity. 
Show us the Father, cries the human heart, and it 
sufficeth us. He that hath seen Me, says Jesus, hath seen 
the Father. God is like Jesus—that is the gospel! It is 
no gospel to insist that Jesus is like God, for we are des- 
cribing the known in the terms of the unknown. It is 
no gospel to say that Jesus is the son of God—taking 
these words literally—but it is a gospel of immeasurable 
glory to say that God is the Father of Jesus. We solve 
the unknown God by the known Jesus. But we are 
mocked when our answer is made our problem. 

It is this fact-character of Jesus which sets Him in 
vital connection with modern life. We are not so sure of 
any metaphysical or doctrinal demonstration as our fath- 
ers were, even though we can find no flaws in the reason- 
ing. But the claim of Jesus that God is His Father has 


90 SELECTED ARTIGUES 


a way of demonstrating itself altogether congenial to our 
modern tests of truth. That is the practical way of tak- 
ing Him in earnest and seeing what happens. It is the 
way of experiment, of moral adventure, backed and 
prompted by high hope and a bit of reason, but not 
proved to be rational until tried out in experience. We 
have witnessed through the centuries in the personal 
inner life of millions of men a demonstration of the 
truth of Christ’s claim to bring the peace and grace and 
power of God to the human spirit. And we are witnes- 
sing today the beginnings of an attempt, on a grand 
scale to test God’s fatherhood of Jesus by trying out in 
the wide ranges of our economic, political, international 
and social life whether the nature of things will support 
and sustain a human world built upon the foundation of 
that mind which was in Christ Jesus. The full majesty 
of Jesus, thus, is no static achievement of metaphysics, 
as fundamentalism insists; it still waits for its true dem- 
onstration. And the proof rests not so much with our 
logicians and scholars, as with those of us who in simple 
faith with earnest hearts lend willing and untiring hands 
to the building of that kingdom in which His will is done 
on earth as it is in heaven. 


WE MUST HOLLOW JESUS, NOTSP A is 


That Jesus of Nazareth spent His public life in giv- 
ing to the Twelve a teaching that He declared to be the 
Way of Life; and that He had no sooner left the world 
than from His state in glory He straightway deputed 
another man to be His chief accredited organ; and that 
through this new mouthpiece He proceeded to set aside 
the chief part of what He had taught during His life- 
time, substituting for His simple ethics a complicated 
group of theological speculations, so as to make a sys- 

1 By Henry C. Vedder, professor in Crozer Theological Seminary. The 


Fundamentals of Christianity. p. 148-50, 235. Copyright (1922), The Mac- 
millan Company, New York. Reprinted by permission of the publishers. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM QI 


tem of theology the gospel, instead of a proclamation 
of the Kingdom of God—this is a hypothesis so fan- 
tastic, so lacking in all elements of credibility, that one 
marvels how it could find a sane advocate anywhere. 
Who can credit that the heavenly Christ taught through 
Paul something so different from what the early Jesus 
taught the Twelve? Can we, if we would, regard the 
Gospels and the Pauline epistles as literary products or 
thought products of the same personality? 

It is a historical fact, of course, that the entire 
church of the following centuries proceeded to substi- 
tute Paul for Jesus, as the authoritative teacher of Chris- 
tianity. For “the truth as it is in Jesus” the Fathers 
taught the truth as it is in Paul. But they did this with- 
out consciousness of what they were doing, never at- 
tempting dogmatic justification for their conduct... . 
Paul’s teaching was quietly put in place of the teaching 
of Jesus. Not one of the great theologians of the church 
—Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Melanch- 
thon, Calvin—drew any considerable part of his doc- 
trine from the words of Jesus. All without exception, 
Catholic or Protestant, are expounders of Paul.... 

From the time of Constantine it was held that the 
promise of Jesus to send to His disciples the Spirit of 
Truth, had been fulfilled in such wise that the voice of 
the church was the voice of Christ. A vast spiritual 
despotism was gradually built on the basis of that false- 
hood, and it required the great convulsion of the six- 
teenth century to win once more for Christian men a 
measure of that liberty wherewith Christ made us free. 
Now some would build a new spiritual despotism on 
the claim that the voice of Paul is the voice of Christ. 
In our day pure religion must do battle for the princi- 
ple that the voice of Christ was heard once for all in 
the words of Jesus, and that all other pretended voices 
of Christ are delusion or sham..,.. 

... It has clearly appeared in the course of our dis- 
cussions that Jesus and Paul give us quite different ideas 


02 SELECTED ARTICLES 


of God. These ideas are so very different that infer- 
ences cannot be drawn from both of them combined, 
while inferences drawn from either taken by itself lead 
to conclusions so unlike that at times they can hardly be 
recognized as referring to the same God. The two 
philosophies that result from taking Jesus or Paul as 
fundamental authority regarding God are at variance 
almost as radically as any form of Christianity differs 
from Buddhism. Historic Christianity has followed 
Paul. It is the main object of this book* to convince 
readers that the Christianity of the future must follow 
Jesus. 


LIBERALIZING THE FUNDAMENTALIST 
MOVEMENT” 


Anyone interested in a study of the significant 
groups in contemporary American life is forced to the 
regrettable observation that in the church Bourbon re- 
action and blind credulity furnish most of the effective 
evangelism and father virtually all of the widely popular 
movements, as witness the current fundamentalist move- 
ment, which is compelling the church to squander in 
guerilla warfare between its own members precious 
energies that should be employed in the prosecution of 
its basic mission. It is nothing less than tragic that lib- 
eralism invariably allows itself to be manceuvered by 
reaction into a defensive position. I have often won- 
dered why Bourbons seem to have so much better sense 
of generalship than liberals. Perhaps it is because they 
have all their energy left for strategy. However gray- 
minded they may be in other ways, the standpatters have 
an uncanny facility for capturing the effective catch- 
word. It would be difficult to imagine a more nearly 
irresistible rallying-cry than the word “fundamentalism.” 


1 That is, of course, of Professor Vedder’s book, not of this handbook. 
2 By Glenn Frank. Century. 106: 637-40. August, 1923. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 93 


The man in the street has a veritable passion for “go- 
ing back to the fundamentals of the thing.” He likes to 
feel that he is “getting down to bed-rock.” Whether 
consciously or unconsciously, the fundamentalist move- 
ment, from the point of view of popular psychology, 
has been admirably staged. The high art of sloganeer- 
ing is here seen at its best. The Fundamentalists have 
succeeded in giving the liberal and intelligent leaders of 
the church the appearance of renegades who are sniping 
the church from the ramparts. 

The liberal movement in the church is weakest in 
its sense of strategy. The right is on its side, but the 
right is being badly stage-managed. The success of the 
fundamentalist movement would mean the conversion of 
the church into a Hall of Dead Doctrines presided over 
by Pious Ignorance. The success of the liberal move- 
ment would mean the conversion of the church into an 
inspiring and energizing force of contemporary civiliz- 
ation. But the liberal movement will not succeed as long 
as the liberals wage a merely defensive warfare against 
the detailed contentions of the fundamentalist program. 
The liberal movement will succeed only when the liber- 
als spend their energies in the organization of a liberal 
fundamentalist movement that will put the reactionaries 
on the defensive—a movement that will beat the Funda- 
mentalists at their own game of catchwords and mob 
psychology. All the necessary raw materials for a lib- 
eral fundamentalist movement lie ready at hand. 

I should like to suggest fourteen points that I think 
should be included in the program of any such liberal 
fundamentalist movement. I think that liberal leader- 
ship should challenge the church to do the following 
things: 


I.— SUBSTITUTE THE RELIGION OF JESUS 
FOR CHRISTIANITY 


I am not merely playing with words here. Most in- 
telligent folk realize, I think, that three-fourths of our 


04 SELECTED ARTICLES 


traditional theological doctrine bear little, if any, direct 
relation to the religion of Jesus. If Jesus were to re- 
turn to earth, I doubt that He would be able to recognize 
either His purpose or His program in the average theo- 
logical treatise. Hounded free-lance that he was, be- 
rated, betrayed, and beaten by the Fundamentalists of 
His own time, Jesus would be ill at ease in reading the 
theological pronouncements of that over-doctrinized and 
over-formalized Christianity which has for centuries 
usurped the place, misinterpreted the principles, and 
maladministered the influence of His essentially simple 
religion, which was and is not only personally regenera- 
tive, but socially revolutionary. 


I].—Maxke Faitu A MATTER OF ADVENTURE RATHER 
THAN A MATTER OF ASSENT 


Too often faith has been made a synonym for cre- 
dulity. When some one says that John Smith is a man of 
great faith, we are accustomed to think that this means 
that John Smith is a man marked chiefly by the fact that 
he is willing to believe any widely accepted doctrine pro- 
vided it was formulated enough centuries ago and its 
authors look antique enough in the steel engravings. In 
such case, it would be more accurate to say that John 
Smith is a man of great cowardice. The man of great 
faith is the man who has such confidence in the essential 
rightness of the universe that he is willing to adventure 
outside the little circle of the white light of the known 
that falls about his feet. Throughout history the men 
of greatest faith have not been conformists, but pioneers. 


IJ] —PrEACH THE GOSPEL OF JESUS RATHER THAN THE 
GosPeL AzsouT JESUS 


The distinction here is too obvious to require explan- 
ation. I want only to record this personal impression: 
in at least eight times out of ten that I listen to an 
orthodox sermon I leave the church with the feeling that 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 05 


I have listened to a man discuss a historical something 
that happened some nineteen hundred years ago. The 
gospel about Jesus may be intellectually interesting, but 
it lacks power to motivate the contemporary world. The 
gospel about Jesus makes a minister the calm expositor 
of a doctrinal form; the gospel of Jesus makes a minis- 
ter the impassioned advocate of a dynamic force. 


IV.—APppPLyY AS WELL AS ANNOUNCE THE PRINCIPLES 
OF THE RELIGION oF JESUS 


The mere personal recommendation of the sermon 
on the mount and the golden rule does not constitute an 
adequate message to the modern man. The church must 
add to the preaching of abstract virtues and personal 
spiritual experience an intimate, continuous, and speci- 
fic moral analysis of all the political, social, industrial, 
and professional processes of modern society. Today 
a business or professional man can lie, steal, take life, 
and despoil virtue in a thousand indirect, imperson- 
al, and long-distance ways that never occurred to Moses 
when he announced the ten commandments—ways the 
moral implications of which it is not always easy for a 
man to recognize. Now the minister, if he is anything, 
must be an expert in the moral meaning of modern life. 
The religion of Jesus must function today in a changed 
world, and it is the business of the church to show men 
what the religion of Jesus means in terms of life in 
modern America rather than in ancient Palestine. 


V.—Ask MEN To BELIEVE ONLY WHAT THEY CAN USE, 
On.ty Wuat Is TRUE For THEM 


The religion of Jesus is not a philosophy to be intel- 
lectually believed; it is a way of life. To borrow a 
phrase from educational theory, in the matter of reli- 
gion we live our way into our thinking more than we 
think our way into our living. Intellectual assent to a 
doctrine means exactly nothing to me unless that “belief” 


96 SELECTEDMARTFICEES 


actually does something to my character or my conduct. 
No truth is mine until I have lived it. In a very real 
sense I cannot accept the religion of another. That I 
am intellectually convinced that it is true does not make 
it true; it becomes true for me only after it saturates me 
so that waking or sleeping it colors my life. And I 
am reminded that it was only after His little personal 
cabinet of twelve associates had been His disciples for 
many months that Jesus catechized them to find out who 
they thought He was> He let them come to their con- 
clusion about His character by living and working with 
Him; He did not demand that they hold a certain opinion 
as a sort of entrance requirement to discipleship. 


VI.—MoDERNIZE THE RELIGIOUS VOCABULARY 


The men who wrote the books of the Bible used the 
language-forms of their own time. Religious leader- 
ship is not, in the main, following their lead. The church 
today needs to scrap its ancient vocabulary and begin to 
talk to the men of this generation in language-forms and 
thought-forms that the men of this generation can readi- 
ly understand without having to leap backward over 
nineteen centuries and convert themselves into ancient 
Orientals in order to decode the similes and metaphors 
that fall strangely on Occidental ears and insulate the 
religion of Jesus from vital contact with the modern 
mind. 


_VIIL—EMpHASIZE THE USE oF SCIENCE BY RELIGION 
RATHER THAN THE RECONCILIATION OF SCIENCE TO 
RELIGION 


The Fundamentalist seems to regard science and re- 
ligion as two distinct entities, like two prize-fighters 
who had been striking below the belt and were being 
asked to apologize and shake hands. Science is not an 
entity that we can personalize as either devil or. deity: 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM of 


it is a compound of a thousand and one specific results. 
The problem of religious leadership is not that of pass- 
ing judgment on science as an entity, but the problem 
of making intelligent use of the new truths unearthed 
by psychology, biology, and kindred sciences. 


VIII.—DRAMATIZE RATIONALISM W1TH RITUAL AND 
BEAUTY 


It is regrettable that when ministers become rational 
and liberal in their understanding of the religion of 
Jesus they tend to denude their church service of that 
ritual and richness which the human sense of festival 
and hunger for beauty demand. The average liberal 
church service does not stimulate the imagination and 
satisfy the legitimate emotions of the masses. Protes- 
tantism unwisely threw away much of its cultural and 
artistic birthright in its revolt from Catholicism. That 
there is a basic difference in certain doctrines between 
the Catholic and the Protestant church is no reason why 
Protestantism should renounce ritual and exile beauty 
from its life. 


IX.—KNnow Gop AS THE MIND AND THE HEART OF 
THE UNIVERSE RATHER THAN AS ITs JUDGE 


To think of God as immanent in His creation, alive 
and breathing in every atom of His universe, is not a 
reversion to primitive pantheism that peopled the world 
with a medley of gods, turning tree and stone and 
waterfall into a divinity; it is not an atheistic attempt 
to materialize the spiritual, but rather the spiritualiza- 
tion of the material. It does not even preclude the 
personality of God. I do not know where / am in my 
body. I am in my hand when I want to lift something. 
I am in my tongue when I want to speak. My mind 
and imagination travel through the lead and wood of 
my pencil, flow in the ink of my pen, or crawl along the 


98 SELECTED ARTICLES 


metallic bars of my typewriter as I write. And yet 
I am a personality. I can approach a God who is in 
like manner the mind and heart of the universe as I 
could never approach a God who was patterned after 
an Oriental despot and functioned primarily as a 
police judge. 


X.—MAKE THE CHURCH THE VOICE OF THE LIVING 
AS WELL AS THE DEAD PROPHETS 


The Hebrew race holds no monopoly on inspiration, 
and prophecy did not die with Isaiah and Micah. Mr. 
Wells was no impious iconoclast when he suggested 
that we should bring together a new “Bible of Civiliza- 
tion.’ We need such a synthesis of the modern mind’s 
reachings after ultimate meanings not to supplant, but 
to supplement the Bible. 


XI.—BREAK THE CHAINS THAT Now BIND THE 
CHURCH TO THE STATE 


We have been under the delusion that we have ef- 
fected a separation of church and state. We have not. 
We have de jure separation, but de facto union of 
church and state. In times of crisis, when the state 
barks, the church barks, and straightway begins to hunt 
with the pack. Let war be declared, and the church 
makes its God the ally alike of Pershing and Hindenburg. 


XII._—DEFINE SIN AS ANYTHING THAT Hurts LIFE 
RATHER THAN SOMETHING THAT OFFENDS GOD 


Only so can sin become, in the mind of the average 
man, a moral rather than a legalistic issue. A God 
worthy of the worship of intelligent men does not spend 
His time nursing His dignity and watching for infrac- 
tions of a set of rules. He is pained only when some- 
thing poisons or prostitutes His handiwork. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 99 


XIII—MAaKE THE “SCHEME OF REDEMPTION” TAKE 
Into Account INSTITUTIONS AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS 


The religion of Jesus has something to say to society 
as well as to the soul. It is as much concerned with 
the reconstruction of the social order as it is with the 
redemption of the individual. In the mind of Jesus 
there was no contradiction between personal and social 
religion. There is no such thing as the “spiritual” gos- 
pel and the “social” gospel being offered to mankind as 
alternatives. 


XIV.—MERGE THE SACRED AND THE SECULAR 


Traditional theology has blighted life with a danger- 
ous dualism that has made religion consist in the doing 
of special things. The religion of Jesus is not the do- 
ing of special things, but the doing of all things in a 
special way. Spirituality is not “a something” that life 
uses; it is the tone and quality of life as a whole. 

I offer these as suggestions only, not as a complete 
program. I have left out many really fundamental 
things. I have been interested only in suggesting a 
method of approach. 


THE RELIGION OF A LIBERAL CHRISTIAN * 


Why is it that Christian people—and even those who 
might not venture to call themselves Christians—seem 
never nearer to one another than when they are singing 
together the best of the old hymns? 

The music has something to do with it. Memory 
and old association have a part in it. But there is an- 
other reason. The really fine hymns have no theological 
definitions in them. They utter pure emotion m the 
language of simple faith. 

“How firm a foundation, 


32 66 


Jesus, lover of my soul.” 


1By Henry van Dyke. Outlook. 136: 177-8. January 30, 1924, 


100 SELECTED ARTICLES 

“Jerusalem the golden,’ “Lead, kindly light,’ “Jesus, 
the very thought of Thee,” “There’s a wideness in God’s 
mercy,” “Abide with me”—these are hymns that lift and 
strengthen our hearts and bring us into harmony with 
all who love and seek God. While we sing them we do 
not ask whether they were written by Catholics or Prot- 
estants, Fundamentalists or Modernists. We are “com- 
passed about with songs of deliverance” (Psalm xxxii: 
Ai) f 
The sharp doctrinal controversy which is now disturb- 
ing so many of the churches may possibly have some 
good results. (Almost everything that happens in this 
mixed world has that possibility.) If it should lead 
to a closed and more intelligent study of the Bible, a 
better understanding of Christian history, a clearer con- 
viction that there is no antagonism between reverent 
science and reasonable religion, that would surely be 
good. 

But the trouble is, at least for the present, that the 
unhappy features of the controversy are more in evi- 
dence that its possible benefits. In the first place, it 
starts out with two vague, pretentious, and misleading 
names. That method of procedure leads to nothing— 
except strife. | 

What are the Fundamentalists? “We are the 
people,” they answer, “who are trying to keep religion 
on its old foundations and build up the faith once for, 
all delivered to the saints.”’ Undoubtedly that is true 
of many of them—men of piety and sincerity and good- 
will. But it is not true of all who use this name, certain- 
ly not of those who are openly trying to drive out of the 
church all who will not accept their precise definitions 
of dogma. To these men we say: “You are not really 
Fundamentalists at all. You assert authority to lay down 
the essential tests of faith for others, disregarding 
Christ who says ‘Him that cometh to Me I will in no 
wise cast out;’ disregarding St. Paul, who declares that 
no man can lay any other foundation than Jesus Christ. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 101 


You are ‘New Foundationists. We don’t want to cast 
you out; we believe in a comprehensive Church of Christ 
the divine Saviour; and we firmly claim the right to 
stay in it, in spite of the fact that we can’t accept your 
definitions.” 

What are the Modernists? The name, I believe, 
came into general use during a controversy in the Cath- 
olic Church in the nineteenth century. It is a foolish 
‘ and footless name. Some to whom it is applied are, 
no doubt, unbelievers in any divine revelation, unbeliev- 
ers in Christ as God manifest in the flesh; they accept 
no superhuman mystery in religion, nothing that is not 
new, but nevertheless they try to serve humanity in 
honest love. For these men I have no enmity, but sym- 
pathy, and a special admiration when they say that they 
can no longer claim the name of Christians. 

But others who are called Modernists are in a dif- 

ferent class. They take the Bible as a true record of 
man’s search for God apd God's progressive revelations 
to man; not an inerrant text-book of science and his- 
tory, but a sure guide of faith and conduct. They 
adore Christ and try to follow him, as the Son of God 
and the Son of Man, the divine Redeemer who lived and 
died to save the world from sin; but they do not press 
for a clinical explanation of the mode of his incarnation. 
They rather dislike the materialistic tone of many of 
these curious genealogical inquiries. They do not think 
them essential to a true faith in Christ as the supreme 
Revealer of God and Saviour of men. 
. Now what sense is there in grouping these two types 
of teaching under one name as “Modernist?” They are 
much farther apart than the moderate conservative and 
the reasonable progressive. It is the “falsehood of ex- 
tremes,” the bitterness of irreconcilables, that makes all 
the trouble in the church. 

Why not sweep away these two sillv and misleading 
names, “Fundamentalists’ and “Modernists?” They 
only becloud the issue and confuse the mind of the plain 


102 SELECTED ARTICLES 


folks. The real difference (which I pray may not be- 
come a division) is between the literalists, who inter- 
pret the Scripture according to the letter, and the 
liberals, who interpret according to the spirit. 

We liberals have no wish to exclude the literalists 
from the church. But the literalists are more warlike. 
They say the liberals must go out. Among the Pres- 
bysterians a few men plainly say the church must be 
divided and the literalists left in possession of the en- 
dowments. Now this proposition (which has a certain 
commercial flavor) is definitely schismatic—that is to 
say, it seeks to split the church. 

But there is another thing that must strike the plain 
man who likes to take words in their ordinary sense. 
The so-called ‘‘five points of essential doctrine” * which 
are put forth by the literalists as tests of Christian faith 
are not consistent with one another. 

Take an example. The first point is the absolute 
freedom of the Scriptures from error of any kind. The 
second point is the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, as told 
in the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke. Now 
suppose a plain man accepts this story as it is told, and 
believes, as I do, in the virgin birth. Then he reads on 
and finds (Luke 11:33) that Joseph and Mary are dis- 
tinctly called “the father and the mother’ of Jesus. 
Then he turns back and finds (Matthew i: 16) that the 
descent of Jesus from David and Abraham is definitely 
traced through Joseph. Now what is the plain man, 
taking language in its obvious sense, to do? Either he 
must give up the doctrine of the virgin birth, or he must 
hedge and qualify his statement that the Holy Scriptures 
are absolutely free from error, or he must say, as the 
liberals do: “Such material discrepancies mean nothing 
to us. We interpret Scripture, not by the letter, but by 
the spirit. Anyway, we believe that Jesus Christ is our 
God and Saviour.” 

It would be easy to go on showing, in the same way, 
that the five points of the literalists are neither self- 

1 See p. 21. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 103 


consistent, nor adequate as statements of the truth taught 
in the Bible, nor binding as “essential doctrines.” But — 
to what purpose? It would only make confusion worse 
confounded. 

The second unhappy feature of the Fundamentalists’ 
strife is its tendency to delay and obstruct the practical 
work of the church. This conflict diverts attention and 
effort from Christian service to dogmatic definitions. 
Christ said, “By their fruits shall ye know them.” St. 
James said that faith was proved by works. Doing 
good in obedience to Christ is the ultimate test of orth- 
odoxy. 

The third unhappy feature of this literalists’ attack 
upon the liberals is the distraction and anxiety which it 
causes in the mind of very simple Christian folks. They 
are my folks. With all who can sing “Jesus, lover of 
my soul’ from the heart, and then rise up to do good 
in the world, I am in fellowship. Let us not be dismayed. 
Christ will save us and give us the victory. 

The friend who asked me to write this paper re- 
quested me to imagine myself “standing on a soap-box, 
addressing a mixed crowd.” Well, I have often done 
practically that very thing, and in each case have found 
it necessary to speak directly to the people who were 
there, according to their various human needs and de- 
sires of soul. 

But three things seem to me to belong to the Every- 
man Gospel, and somehow or other the Christian 
preacher, on the soap-box or in the pulpit, ought to try 
to get them over to his brother-man, rich or poor, learned 
or simple. 

First, God made us all. We are not the children of 
chance, the offspring of senseless matter and blind force. 
The Great Spirit is the framer of our bodies and the 
Father of our spirits. Lift up your hearts. Our bodies 
come from dust, but our souls from God. Let us live 
bravely, not as mere beasts, but as men and women, 
children of God. 


104 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Second, there is something wrong with all of us, 
something which makes it easier to go down than to go 
up, and to indulge our passions rather than to follow 
our conscience. The Bible tells us, and our hearts know, 
what that evil thing is.- It is sin, selfishness, which 
separates us from our Father in heaven and from our 
brother-men on earth, and makes all the trouble in the 
world. We must escape from it, get rid of its guilt and 
its power, if we want peace and a better life. 

Third, there is only one person who can deliver us, 
Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He came from heaven, 
and lived a sinless life as the Son of man, and died upon 
the cross to save the world from sin. He rose from the 
dead to bring immortality to light. He is one with the 
Father. God is like Christ. He is love, forgiveness, 
mercy, truth. Every one who wants to may come to this 
Saviour. If you believe in Him, He will give you a new 
life. If you trust Him, He will give you the peace that 
is everlasting. If you honestly try to obey Him in being 
good and doing good, that will be the test and proof of 
your true faith. There is no other. Try this. You 
don’t need to swallow a volume of theological definitions. 
Simply come to Jesus, trust Him fully, follow Him hon- 
estly, and you shall be saved. That is Gospel truth. 


WEY CONSERVATIVE CORT Tinos 
TS oORT POPC i Ain 


Religious conservatism, for all its stern terminology 
of divine anger, narrow ways, and strait * gates, presents 
Christianity primarily as a comfort, asa means of getting 
off rather cheaply by the simple device of being sorry 
and believing something. Religious liberalism challenges 
men to an adventurous quest for the ultimate realities 
of life. 


1 By Glenn Frank. William Jennings Bryan, a Mind Divided Against 
Itself. Century. 106: 795. September, 1923. 


2 The original has “straight,’”’ which must be an inadvertent error. 


E. AN ATTACK ON BOTH PARTIES 


THEVSHAMECOR THE GHURCHES* 


The clergy of the various Protestant churches and 
more especially the clergy of the Protestant Episcopal 
church during the past few weeks have been acting in 
such wise as to grieve their friends and to amuse their 
enemies. If the clergy, high and broad, are conspiring 
together to bring their church into contempt and to de- 
stroy its influence, they are displaying an efficiency in 
their efforts that might well excite the envy of the suc- 
cessful business man. It is difficult for anyone of or- 
dinary intelligence and common decency to retain a shred 
of respect for either party in this disgraceful quarrel. 

When one hears the clergy shouting one to another, 
inaabeliCve syawt' 4) Ladownot, believeyin ithes virgin 
birth,’ one is not so much troubled by their orthodoxy 
or their heterodoxy as one is amazed at their bad man- 
ners. Matters which cultivated men and women take for 
granted or veil in decent phrase are unblushingly cried 
from the pulpit. I am sure if these reverend gentlemen 
could realize how their cries offend modest ears they 
would themselves blush for very shame. As they reveal 
themselves in this contention one deplores in the clergy 
not only their lack of reserve in the treatment of deli- 
cate subjects but more their seeming deficiency in intel- 
lectual discernment, their lack of spiritual insight, and 
their apparent ignorance of historical conclusions which 
for more than half a century have been the possession 
of every fairly educated man and woman. 

It is plain that in these birth stories we are dealing 
not with prosaic history but with myth and legend. A 


1By Algernon S. Crapsey. Nation. 118: 53-4. January 16, 1924. 


106 SELECTED ARTICLES 


myth is a story told to shepherds by shepherds as they 
watch their flocks by night. A legend is the same story 
in poetical form, reduced to writing and recited by a 
prophet in the temple. History is the same story de- 
livered as a lecture by a professor in a classroom. Of 
these three forms the last is the least vital. As Shultz 
says in his “Old Testament Theology;” “When we read 
the myths and legends of a people we have our fingers 
on the pulse and our ear on the heart of that people.” 
The bishops may have, been childish to take the birth 
stories literally, but the broad churchman is stupid not 
to take them at all. Through all the Christian ages, the 
Song of the Angels has been the carol of the children, 
and the coming of the wise men the comfort of the 
weary and heavy-laden. In these birth stories is the 
germ thought of a world beyond the world, without 
which our world were very sad and desolate. But the 
instant we remove these stories from their home in 
mythology into the sphere of literal history we destroy 
their charm and make of them mere stories for the nur- 
sery. The very same story, in its essentials, is told of 
Augustus Caesar. It is said that one day his mother, 
Maia, went into the temple to pray and as she prayed a 
serpent glided into the temple and embraced her and she 
conceived and the child who was born of that concep- 
tion in due time became the Emperor Augustus, the 
master of the world. 

These myths were the natural product of the pious 
imagination of the worshipers of Augustus and the wor- 
shipers of Jesus. The Romans thought it inipious to 
think of Augustus as the grandson of a Roman baker, 
nor could the Christian kneel in adoration before the 
son of a Galilean carpenter. The quarrel of the highs 
and the broads over the birth stories is a quarrel of the 
childish with the stupid. With the high churchman it is 
the outcome of a lack of intelligence; with the broad 
churchman a lack of feeling. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 107 


The deepest disgrace of this quarrel between the 
High Church, as represented by the bishop of New York, 
and the Broad Church, whose chief spokesman is the 
rector of the Church of St. Bartholomew, is that it is 
practically a quarrel about nothing. The bishop says 
Jesus is to him very God of very God; the rector says 
that Jesus is to him his divine Lord and Master. Such 
being the case, it would seem the sacred duty of the 
bishop to obey his God and of the rector to follow his 
divine Lord and Master. And if the bishop did obey 
his God and if the rector did follow his divine Lord and 
Master, would not these two meet in the midst of the 
stern moralities and severe spiritualities of the Sermon 
on the Mount, and meeting there must they not each fall 
down on his knees and cry, the bishop to his God, the 
rector to his Lord and Master: “Lord, have mercy on 
me, a sinner?” 

From that high altitude would not the sinful futility 
of his cathedral building be manifest to the bishop? 
Would he not see that to get the wherewithal to build 
his cathedral he must be careful not to offend the land- 
lords and the money-lords of the city. Looking down 
from Morningside Heights he would see landlords ex- 
acting exorbitant rents for tenements unfit for human 
habitation; he would see pale, anemic women climbing 
darkened stairways to sleep in the fetid atmosphere of 
unventilated rooms; he would see weary workmen heav- 
ily slumbering in the same bed with wife and children; 
he would see the crowded tenements, the breeding place 
of sexual vice in its fouler forms of sodomy and incest. 

And going to the Stock Exchange, the bishop would 
see the money-lords by the manipulations of the market 
robbing the innocent, impoverishing the widow and the 
orphan, and giving the tithe of these ungodly gains to 
the building and support of his cathedral. 

It would then come home to the bishop as a student 
of history that in every age the building of temples and 


108 SELECTED ARTICLES 


cathedrals has been the cardinal crime of the bishops and 
the priests. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries when 
the bishops were exhausting the labor of the people in 
the building of the cathedrals the people themselves were 
living in wattle huts without window or chimney, 
frightened by the dark and smothered by the smoke. 
It was the sale of indulgences for sin to raise the money 
to pay for the building of the greatest of all cathedrals, 
the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome, that roused the wrath 
of Luther, causing him to hurl his anathema at this 
wickedness and create the great schism in the church. 

One single night spent by the bishop of New York 
alone on the mount of the sermon would, if he has any 
intelligence, any heart, any soul, make him ashamed and 
afraid and his quarrel with the rector of St. Barthol- 
omew’s would be as nothing in comparison with his quar- 
rel with his own soul. 

But the rector of St. Bartholomew’s is in a still more 
perilous condition. It was easy for the rector of St. 
Bartholomew’s to defy the bishop; St. Bartholomew’s 
is the richest single congregation in Christendom; it is 
the church of the American millionaire and billionaire, 
and the rector knew that the bishop fears the millionaire 
and the billionaire more than he fears his God; so the 
rector was not afraid of his bishop. But the rector was 
and is afraid of his own congregation; he would never 
dare defy the millionaires and billionaires as he defied 
his bishop. He would never dare to tell the millionaires 
and billionaires to their face that the mere possession of 
the millions and billions was evidence of their godlessness ; 
if they had not loved their money more than they loved 
their God they would not have had their money. This 
rector would never dare to tell his congregation that in 
living a life of wasteful idleness upon money which they 
had never earned they were more guilty than the 
wretched woman of the street who sells her body for 
her bread. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 109 


I know that vast sums of accumulated wealth are 
expended in these days for the betterment of the race. 
But the prime social question is not what a man does 
with his money but how did he get it. If like the Roman 
generals and the robber barons of the Middle Ages he 
gets it by the wasting of the land, the pillage of cities, 
the enslavement of the people, it matters nothing if he 
builds a temple to Jupiter or a Christian cathedral. What 
the world demands today is not charity in the modern 
sense, but justice. 

Liberal Christianity and orthodox Christianity are 
equally responsible for the world as it is. They equally 
stand sponsor for the capitalistic, militaristic system 
which now rules the world. They equally hate the paci- 
fist-communist mode of life which Jesus preached and 
practiced and under the rule of which the Christian 
community carried on its work for the first four hundred 
years of its history and conquered the world. In those 
days of greatness there was a distinction between the 
church and the world; the world hated the church and 
the church defied the world. Today there is not the 
slightest distinction between the church and the world 
unless it be that the world is master and the church the 
slave. 

The capitalist, militarist, political system has in the 
past ten years made the church particeps crimumis in the 
slaughter, with unspeakable cruelties, of from fifteen to 
twenty million of the choicest men of this generation. 
And the capitalist, militarist system, having the church 

in bondage, goes on with its exploitation of the people 
as if these twenty million were all dead and done for. 
But they are not dead and done for. Such a crime must 
inevitably have a penalty. As Jesus wept over the city 
of Jerusalem, seeing in its present sin its future down- 
fall, so the sensitive soul stands aghast at the awful 
plight of western, so-called Christian civilization, fore- 
seeing in its present evil its future disaster. And in 


IIO SELECTED ARTICLES 


view of this vision, the squabbling bishop and rector are 
as if they were two French nobles in the days of the 
Revolution, quarreling about their pedigrees as they were 
riding in the tumbrel to the guillotine. 


Part II 
THE BIBLE 


ok hits 


a} 


i i o 
be me f 









‘i mr | nN ae : ari. 
ae ie By . ive fa aaa 
hte ‘ an He h 


a 
i ' H 





7 










ih ( | a “NG 














‘ ‘ 7 
iw & P * a ik apg TOs ch > 
ol W uF a Lie an? j , 4 | BP ; 0 
i ¥ aoe et 4y' Y 
ae 1 CUE 4 ba reg eh. ee M yt ny Se “4 
* P . 7 “Ue P sh 
| irs , ima 7m ha ate a i eared ES | Lense aT. Hear: 
4 { Pam A re 5a ny drt * Py et 
‘ Liven ti ‘ Mh r » « 4 ; } j ' % t 
: r ' 1 a ie 
t 4 The 4 
‘ he ) 7 ul 
; } , 
j . 
s } 
: 
m) 
4 
iy ‘ 
an “a 
| ; 
. r 
‘ } 
\ \ f i 
! 
; | 
1 
ey is 
+7 
% 
) ' 
. ’ 
7 ee vd 
' P 
, . | 
+ = x J 
P' 
t 
" 
i ; 4 } Y ; 
i i , 
i ' ; \ i . f 
i i 
i ’ j 
‘ , 
hs ad Pil } if 
im 4 A} 4 ! ; iy ‘ , i 
fhe) ; ‘ y VERN: ly ‘ 
| j i i 4 ‘ 
' iq , ; ids ' 
a \ Be i | sid 
5 ee 
if eam 
Li A Vii? ee Ty AP 
i { er! / i { f 
i au i eh Th 1 , \ ae it 4 ‘ Nai ry Wy 1) 
uy | iy, ai. ¥ L ¥ / ‘ 1 if 74 i" Ri, 1A; 
i w? } ‘ a a ; 7 1 ioe di i j 
f j iy 
yf 7. ( ey {5 Wii rs) i 
ba eee Sieg | 
a fy / j j tn ee a 
oi Pt TA iA phiaeaaly 
We uy ue ’ ‘ Jah J Md, | 
- ood “aA Z J han \ } s! iv h 
ES a) ae np hy Ah i 44 


HOW THE NEW TESTAMENT 
CAME TO BE! 


This brief historical study of the origin of our New 
Testament has demonstrated twelve significant facts: (1) 
That the original authors of the different books never 
suspected that their writings would have the universal 
value and authority which they now rightfully enjoy. (2) 
That they at first regarded them as merely an imperfect 
substitute for verbal teaching and personal testimony. 
(3)That in each case they had definite individuals and 
conditions in mind. (4) That the needs of the rapidly 
growing church and the varied and trying experiences 
through which it passed were all potent factors in in- 
fiuencing the authors of the New Testament to write. 
(5) That certain books especially the historical like 
Luke and Matthew, are composite, consisting of ma- 
terial taken bodily from older documents, like Matthew’s 
Sayings of Jesus and the original narrative of Mark. 
(6) That our New Testament books are only a part of 
a much larger early Christian literature. (7) That they 
are unquestionably, however, the most valuable and rep- 
resentative writings of that larger literature. (8) That 
they were only gradually selected and ascribed a value 
and authority equal to that of the Old Testament writ- 
ings. (9) That there were three distinct stages in the 
formation of the New Testament canon’: the gospels 
were first recognized as authoritative; then Acts, the 
Apostolic Epistles, and the Apocalypse; and last of all, 
the complete canon. (10) That the canon was formed 


1By C. F. Kent. Origin and Permanent Value of the Old Testament. 
p. 83-4. Copyright (1913) by Charles Scribner’s Sons. Reprinted by 
permission of the publishers. These statements of Prof. Kent would 
probably be accepted by almost ail informed students of the Bible, whether 
liberal or orthodox. 


2The “canon” is the list of accepted and authoritative writings. 


114 SELECTED ARTICLES : 


as a result of the need felt by later generations, in con- 
nection with their study and worship, for reliable rec- 
ords of the history and teachings of Christianity. (11) 
That the principles of selection depended ultimately upon 
the intrinsic character of the books themselves and the 
authority ascribed to their reputed authors. (12) That 
the process of selection continued for fully three cen- 
turies, and that the results represent the thoughtful, en- 
lightened judgment of thousands of devoted Christians. 
Thus through definite. historical forces and the minds 
and wills of men, the Eternal Father gradually perfected 
the record of His supreme revelation to humanity. 


A. IN DEFENSE OF THE OLD VIEW? 
HOLY SCRIPTURE AND MODERN NEGATIONS’* 


Is there today in the midst of criticism and unsettle- 
ment a tenable doctrine of Holy Scripture for the Chris- 
tian church and for the world; and if there is, what is 
that doctrine? That is unquestionably a very pressing 
question at the present time. “Is there a book which we 
can regard as the repository of a true revelation of God 
and an infallible guide in the way of life, and as to our 
duties to God and man?” is a question of immense im- 
portance to us all. Fifty years ago, perhaps less than 
that, the question hardly needed to be asked among Chris- 
tian people. It was universally conceded, taken for 
granted, that there is such a book, the book which we 
call the Bible. Here, it was believed, is a volume which 
is an inspired record of the whole will of God for man’s 
salvation; accept as true and inspired the teaching of 
that book, follow its guidance, and you cannot stumble, 
you cannot err in attaining the supreme end of existence, 
in finding salvation, in grasping the prize of a glorious 
iunmortality. 

Now, a change has come. There is no disguising the 
fact that we live in an age when, within the church, 
there is much uneasy and distrustful feeling about the 
Holy Scriptures—a hesitancy to lean upon them as an 
authority and to use them as the weapons of precision 
they once were; with a corresponding anxiety to find 
some surer basis in external church authority, or with 
others, in Christ Himself, or again in a Christian con- 
sciousness, as it is named—a surer basis for Christian 

1 See also “Mr. Bryan on the Five Points.” p. 32-9 of this handbook. 


2 By the late James Orr, D.D., of Glasgow. The Fundamentals, Vol. 
IX, Chapter IV 


116 SELECTED ARTICLES 


belief and life. We often hear in these days referencé 
to the substitution, in Protestantism, of an “INFALLI- 
BLE BIBLE FOR AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH,” and the im- 
plication is that the one idea is just as baseless as the 
other. Sometimes the idea is taken up, quite commonly 
perhaps, that the thought of an authority external to 
ourselves—to our own reason or conscience or spiritual 
nature—must be wholly given up; that only that can be 
accepted which carries its authority within itself by the 
appeal it makes to reason or to our spiritual being, and 
therein lies the judge for us of what is true and what 
is false. 

That proposition has an element of truth in it; it 
may be true or may be false according as we interpret 
it. However, as it is frequently interpreted it leaves 
the Scriptures—but more than that it leaves Jesus 
‘Christ Himself—without any authority for us save that 
with which our own minds see fit to clothe Him. But in 
‘regard to the INFALLIBLE BIBLE AND THE INFALLIBLE 
CHURCH, it is proper to point out that there is a consid- 
erable difference between these two things—between the 
idea of an authoritative Scripture and the idea of an 
infallible Church or an infallible Pope, in the Roman 
sense of that word. It may be a clever antithesis to 
say that Protestanism substituted the idea of an in- 
fallible book for the older Romish dogma of an infalli- 
ble Church ; but the antithesis, the contrast, unfortunately 
has one fatal inaccuracy about it. The idea of the au- 
thority of Scripture is not younger, but older than Ro- 
manism, It is not a late invention of Protestantism. It 
3s not something that Protestants invented and substi- 
{uted for the Roman conception of the infallible Church; 
by 1t at is the original conception that hes in the Scriptures 
th. >mselves. There is a great difference there. It is a 
beli 2f—this belief in the Holy Scriptures—which was ac- 
cept *d and acted upon by the Church of Christ from the 
first, he Bible itself claims to be an authoritative book, 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 117 


and an infallible guide to the true knowledge of God and 
cf the way of salvation. This view is implied in every 
reference made to it, so far as it then existed, by Christ 
and His Apostles. That the New Testament, the work of 
the Apostles and of apostolic men, does not stand on a 
lower level of inspiration and authority than the Old 
Testament, is, I think, hardly worth arguing. And in 
that sense, as a body of writings of divine authority, the 
beoks of the Old and the New Testament were accepted 
by the Apostles and by the church of the post-apostolic 
age. 

Take the writings of any of the early church fathers 
——-I have waded through them wearily as teacher of 
church history—take Tertullian or Origen, or others, 
and you will find their words saturated with references 
to Scripture. You will find the Scriptures treated in pre- 
cisely the same way as they are used in the Biblical lit- 
erature of today; namely, as the ultimate authority on 
the matters of which they speak. I really do the fathers 
an injustice in this comparison, for I find things said and 
written about the Holy Scriptures by teachers of the 
church today which those early fathers would never have 
permitted themselves to utter. It has now become fash- 
ionable among a class of religious teachers to speak dis- 
xaragingly of or belittle the Holy Scriptures as an au- 
thoritative rule of faith for the church. The leading 
cause of this has undoubtedly been the trend which the 
criticism of the Holy Scriptures has assumed during the 
last half century or more. 

By all means, let criticism have its rights. Let purely 
literary questions about the Bible receive full and fair 
discussion. Let the structure of books be impartially ex- 
amined. If a reverent science has light to throw on the 
composition or authority or age of these books, let its 
voice be heard. If this thing is of God we cannot over- 
fnuowe aiieiL «De Obi or sO, tan asi jt 1S Of malt, OF 
-.so far as it comes in conflict with the reality of.things 





118 SELECTED, ARTICLES 


in the Bible, it will come to naught—as in my opinion a 
great deal of it is fast coming today through its own 
excesses. No fright, therefore, need be taken at the mere 
word, “‘criticism.”’ 

On the other hand, we are not bound to accept every 
wild critical theory that any critic may choose to put 
forward and assert, as the final word on this matter. 
We are entitled, nay, we are bound, to look at the 
presuppositions on which each criticism proceeds, and to 
ask, how far is the criticism controlled by those presup- 
positions ? We are bound to look at the evidence by 
which the theory is supported, and to ask, is it really 
borne out by that evidence? And when theories are put 
forward with every confidence as fixed results, and we 
find them, as we observe them, still in constant process of 
evolution and change, constantly becoming more compli- 
cated, more extreme, more fanciful, we are entitled to in- 
quire, is this the certainty that it was alleged to be? Now 
that is my complaint against much of the current criti- 
cism of the Bible—not that it is criticism, but that it starts 
from the wrong basis, that it proceeds by arbitrary 
methods, and that it arrives at results which I think are 
demonstrably false results. That is a great deal to say, 
no doubt, but perhaps I shall have some justification to 
Oierwon, i belore tl amecone: 

I am not going to enter into any general tirade against 
criticism; but it is useless to deny that a great deal of 
what is called criticism is responsible for the uncertainty 
and unsettlement of feeling existing at the present time 
about the Holy Scriptures. I do not speak especially of 
those whose philosophical standpoint compels them to 
take up an attitude of negation to supernatural revelation, 
or to books which profess to convey such a revelation. 
Criticism of this kind, criticism that starts from the basis 
of the denial of the supernatural, has, of course, to be 
reckoned with. In its hands everything is engineered 
from that basis. There is the denial to begin with, that 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM © 119 


God ever has entered into human history, in word and 
deed, in any supernatural way. The necessary result is 
that whatever in the Bible affirms or flows from such in- 
terposition of God, is expounded or explained away. The 
Scriptures on this showing, instead of being the living 
oracles of God, become simply the fragmentary remains 
of an ancient Hebrew literature, the chief value of which 
would seem to be the employment tt affords to the critic 
to dissect it into its various parts, to overthrow the tra- 
dition of the past m regard to it, and to frame ever new, 
ever changing, ever more wonderful theories of the 
origi of the books and the so-called legends they con- 
tain. Leaving, however, such futile, rationalistic criti- 
cism out of account—because that is not the kind of criti- 
cism with which we as Christian people have chiefly to 
deal in our own circle—there is certainly an immense 
change of attitude on the part of many who still sin- 
cerely hold faith in the supernatural revelation of God. 
I find it difficult to describe this tendency, for I am de- 
sirous not to describe it in any way which would do in- 
justice to any Christian thinker, and it is attended by so 
many signs of an ambiguous character. Jesus is recog- 
nized by the majority of those who represent it as “the 
Incarnate Son of God,’ though with shadings off into 
more or less indefinite assertions even on that fundamen- 
tal article, which make it sometimes doubtful where the 
writers exactly stand. The process of thought in regard 
to Scripture is easily traced. First, there is an os- 
tentatious throwing overboard, joined with some ex- 
pression of contempt, of what is called the verbal inspira- 
tion of Scripture—a very much abused term. Jesus is 
still spoken of as the highest revealer, and it is allowed 
that His words, if only we could get at them—and on 
the whole it is thought we can—furnish the highest rule 
of guidance for time and for eternity. But even criti- 
cism, we are told, must have its rights. Even in the New 
Testament the Gospels go into the crucible, and in the 


120 SELECTED ARTICLES 


name of synoptical criticism, historical criticism, they are 
subject to wonderful processes, in the course of which 
much of the history gets melted out or is peeled off as 
Christian characteristics. Jesus, we are reminded, was 
still a man of His generation, liable to error in His hu- 
man knowledge, and allowance must be made for the 
limitations in His conceptions and judgments. Paul is 
alleged to be still largely dominated by his inheritance 
of Rabbinical and Pharisaic ideas. He had been brought 
up a Pharisee, brought up with the rabbis, and when he 
became a Christian, he carried a great deal of that into 
his Christian thought, and we have to strip off that 
thought when we come to the study of his Epistles. He 
is therefore a teacher not to be followed further than 
our own judgment of Christian truth leads us. That 
gets rid of a great deal that is inconvenient about Paul’s 
teaching. 


THE Otp TESTAMENT AND THE CRITICS 


If these things are done in the “green tree” of the 
New Testament, it is easy to see what will be done in the 
“dry tree’ of the Old. The conclusions of the more 
advanced school of critics are here generally accepted as 
once for all settled, with the result—in my judgment, at 
any rate—that the Old Testament is immeasurably low- 
ered from the place it once held in our reverence. Its ear- 
lier history, down to about the age of the kings, is largely 
resolved into myths and legends and fictions. It is ruled 
out of the category of history proper. No doubt we are 
told that the legends are just as good as the history, and 
perhaps a little better, and that the ideas which they con- 
vey to us are just as good, coming in the form of legends, 
as if they came in the form of fact. 

But behold, its laws, when we come to deal with them 
in this manner, lack divine authority. They are the 
products of human minds at various ages. Its prophe- 
cies are the utterances of men who possessed indeed the 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 121 


Spirit of God, which is only in fuller degree what other 
good men, religious teachers in all countries, have pos- 
sessed—not a spirit qualifying, for example, to give 
teal predictions, or to bear authoritative messages of 
the truth to men. And so, in this whirl and confusion 
of theories—you will find them in our magazines, you 
will find them in our encyclopedias, you will find them in 
our reviews, you will find them in many books which 
have appeared to annihilate the conservative believers— 
in this whirl and confusion of theories, is it any wonder 
that many should be disquieted and unsettled, and feel 
as if the ground on which they have been wont to rest 
was giving way béneath their feet? And so the ques- 
tion comes back with fresh urgency. What is to be said 
of the place and value of Holy Scripture? 


Is THERE A TENABLE DOCTRINE FOR THE CHRISTIAN 
CHURCHVOR, LODAY 


One of the urgent needs of our time, and a prime 
need of the Church, is just a replacement of Holy Scrip- 
ture, with due regard, I grant, to any really ascertained 
facts in regard to its literary history, in the faith and lives 
of men, as the truly inspired and divinely sealed record 
of God’s revealed will for men in great things of the 
soul. But then, is such a position tenable? In the fierce 
light of criticism that beats upon the documents and 
upon the revelation of God’s grace they profess to con- 
tain, can this position be maintained? I venture to think, 
indeed, I am very sure, it can. Let me try to indicate— 
for I can do hardly any more—the lines along which I 
would answer the question, Have we or can we have a 
tenable doctrine of Holy Scripture? 

For a satisfactory doctrine of Holy Scripture—and 
by that I mean a doctrine which is satisfactory for the 
needs of the Christian church, a doctrine which answers 
to the claim the Scripture makes for itself, to the 
place it holds in Christian life and Christian experience, 


122 SELECTED ARTICLES 


to the needs of the Christian church for edification and 
evangelization, and in other ways—I say, for a satisfac- 
tory doctrine of Holy Scripture it seems to me that 
three things are indispensably necessary. There is nec- 
essary, first, a more positive view of the structure of the 
Bible than at present obtains in many circles. There is 
necessary, second, the acknowledgment of a true super- 
natural revelation of God in the history and religion of 
the Bible. There is necessary, third, the recognition of 
a true supernatural inspiration in the record of that reve- 
lation. These three things, to my mind, go together—a 
more positive view of the structure of the Bible; the 
recognition of the supernatural revelation embodied in 
the Bible; and a recognition in accordance with the Bi- 
ble’s own claim of a supernatural inspiration in the rec- 
ord of the Bible. Can we affirm these three things? Will 
they bear the test? I think they will. 


THe STRUCTURE OF THE BIBLE 


First as to the structure of the Bible, there is needed 
a more positive idea of that structure than is at present 
prevalent. You take much of the criticism and you find 
the Bible being disintegrated in many ways, and every- 
thing like structure falling away from it. You are told, 
for example, that these books—say the Books of Moses— 
are made up of many documents, which are very late in 
origin and cannot claim historical value. You are told 
that the laws they contain are also, for the most part, of 
tolerably late origin, and the Levitical laws especially are 
of post-exilian construction; they were not given by 
Moses; they were unknown when the children of Israel 
were carried into captivity. Their temple usage per- 
haps is embodied in the Levitical law, but most of the 
contents of that Levitical law were wholly unknown. 
They were the construction—the invention, to use a term 
lately employed—of priests and scribes in the post-ex- 
ilian period. They were put into shape, brought before 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 123 


the Jewish community returned from Babylon, and ac- 
cepted by it as the law of life. Thus you have the his- 
tory of the Bible turned pretty much upside down, and 
things take on a new aspect altogether. 

Must I then, in deference to criticism, accept these 
theories, and give up the structure which the Bible pre- 
sents? Taking the Bible as it stands, I find—and you 
will find if you look there also, without any particular 
critical learning you will find it—what seems to be evi- 
dence of a very definite internal structure, part fitting 
into part and leading on to part, making up a unity of the 
whole in that Bible. The Bible has undeniably a struc- 
ture as it stands. It is distinguished from all other books 
of the kind, from all sacred books in the world, from 
Koran and Buddhist scriptures and Indian scriptures and 
every other kind of religious books. It is distinguished 
just by this fact, that it is the embodiment of a great 
plan or scheme or purpose of divine grace extending 
from the beginning of time through successive ages and 
dispensations down to its culmination in Jesus Christ 
and the Pentecostal outpourings of the Spirit. The /is- 
tory of the Bible is the history of that development of 
God’s redemptive purpose. The promises of the Bible 
mark the stages of its progress and its hope. The cove- 
iiants of the Bible stand before us in the order of its un- 
folding. You begin with Genesis. Genesis lays the 
foundation and leads up to the Book of Exodus; and the 
Book of Exodus, with its introduction of the law 
giving, leads up to what follows. Deuteronomy 
looks back upon the history of the rebellions and the 
laws given to the people, and leads up to the conquest. 
I need not follow the later developments, coming away 
down through the monarchy and the prophecy and the 
rest, but you find it all gathered up and fulfilled in the 
New Testament. The Bible, as we have it, closes in Gos- 
pel and Epistle and Apocalypse, fulfilling all the ideas of 
the Old Testament. There the circle completes itself 


124 SELECTED ARTICLES 


with the new heaven and the new earth wherein dwelleth 
righteousness. Here is a structure; here is the fact; here 
is a structure, a connected story, a unity of purpose ex- 
tending through this book and binding all its parts to- 
gether. Is that structure an illusion? Do we only, and 
many with us, dream that it is there? Do our eyes de- 
ceive us when we think we see it? Or has somebody of 
a later date invented it, and put it all, inwrought it all, 
in these earlier records, legends and stories or whatever 
you like to call it—skilfully woven into the story until 
it presents there the appearance of naturalness and truth? 
{ would like to find the mind capable of putting it in 
and working it into a history once they got the idea itself. 
But if not invented it belongs to the reality and the 
substance of the history; it belongs to the facts; and 
therefore to the book that records the facts. _ And there 
are internal attestations in that structure of the Buble 
to the genuineness of its contents that protest against 
the efforts that are so often made to reduce it to frag- 
ments and shiver up that unity and turn it upside down. 
“Walk about Zion ... tell the towers thereof; mark ye 
well her bulwarks ;” you will find there’s something there 
which the art of man will not avail to overthrow. 
“Now, that is all very well,’ I hear some one say, 
“but there are facts on the other side; there are those 
manifold proofs which our critical friends adduce that 
the Bible is really a collection of fragments and docu- 
ments of much later date, and that the history is really 
quite a different thing from what the Bible represents 
it to be.” Well, are we to sit down and accept their 
dictum on that subject without evidence? When I turn 
to the evidences I do not find them to have that convin- 
cing power which our critical friends assign to them. 
I am not rejecting this kind of critical theory. be- 
cause it goes against my prejudices or traditions; I re- 
ject it simply because it seems to me the evidence does 
not sustain it, and that the stronger evidence is 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 125 


against it. I cannot go into details; but take just the 
one point that I have mentioned—this post-exilian origin 
of the Levitical law. I have stated what is said about that 
matter—that those laws and institutions that you find in 
the middle of the Books of the Pentateuch—those laws 
and institutions about priests and Levites and sacrifices 
and all that—had really no existence, had no authorita- 
tive form, and to a large extent had no existence of any 
kind until after the Jews returned from Babylon, and 
then they were given out as a code of laws which the 
Jews accepted. That is the theory which is stated once 
and again. But let the reader put himself in the position 
of that returned community, and see what the thing 
means. These exiles had returned from Babylon. They 
had been organized into a new community. They had 
rebuilt their temple, and then long years after that 
when things had got into confusion, those two great 
men, Ezra and Nehemiah, came among them, and by 
and by Ezra produced and publicly proclaimed this law 
of Moses—what he called the law of Moses, the law of 
God by the hand of Moses—which he had brought from 
Babylon. A full description of what happened is given 
in the eighth chapter of the Book of Nehemiah. Ezra 
reads that law from his pulpit of wood day after day to 
the people, and the interpreter gives the sense. Now, 
mind you, most of the things in this law, in this book that 
he is reading to the people, had never been heard of be- 
fore—never had existed, in fact; priests and Levites such 
as are there described had never existed. The law itself 
was long and complicated and burdensome, but the mar- 
velous thing is that the people meekly accept it all as 
triie--meekly accept it as law, at any rate—and submit 
to it, and take upon themselves its burdens without a 
murmur of dissent. 

That is a very remarkable thing to start with. But 
remember, further, what that community was. It was 
not a community with oneness of mind, but it was a com- 


126 SELECTED ARTICLES 


munity keenly divided in itself. If you read the narra- 
tive you will find that there were strong opposing fac- 
tions in that community; there were parties strongly 
opposed to Ezra and Nehemiah and their reforms; there 
were many, as you see in the Book of Malachi, who were 
religiously faithless in that community. But marvelous 
to say, they all join in accepting this new and burden- 
some and hitherto unheard of law as the law of Moses, 
the law coming down. to them from hoary antiquity. 
There were priests and Levites in that community who 
knew something about their own origin; they had geneal- 
ogies and knew something about their own past. Ac- 
cording to the new theory, these Levites were quite a new 
order; and they had never existed at all before the time 
of the exile, and they had come into existence through 
the sentence of degradation that the prophet Ezekiel 
had passed upon them in the 44th chapter of his book. 
History is quite silent about this degradation. If anyone 
asks who carried out the degradation, or why was it 
carried out, or when was it done, and how came the 
priests to submit to the degradation, there is no answer 
to be given at all. But it came about somehow, so we 
are told. 

And so these priests and Levites are there, and they 
stand and listen without astonishment as they learn from 
Ezra how the Levites had been set apart long centuries 
before in the wilderness by the hand of God, and had an 
ample tithe provision made for their support, and cities, 
and what not, set apart for them to live in. People know 
a little about their past. These cities never had existed 
except on paper; but they took it all in. They are told 
about these cities, which they must have known had 
never existed as Levitical cities. They not only hear but 
they accept the heavy tithe burdens without a word of 
remonstrance, and they make a covenant with God 
pledging themselves to faithful obedience to all those 
commands. Those tithe laws, as we discover, had no 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 127 


actual relation to their situation at all. They were drawn 
up for a totally different case. They were drawn up for 
a state of things in which there were few priests and 
many Levites. The priests were only to get the tithe of 
a tenth, but in this restored community there were a great 
many priests and few Levites. The tithe laws did not 
apply at all, but they accepted these as laws of Moses. 

And so I might go over the provisions of the law one 
by one—tabernacle and priests and ritual and sacrifices 
and Day of Atonement—these things, in their post- 
exilian form, had never existed; they were spun out of 
the inventive brains of scribes; and yet the people ac- 
cepted them all as the genuine handiwork of the ancient 
law-giver. Was ever such a thing heard of before? Try 
it in any city. Try to get the people to take upon them- 
selves a series of heavy burdens of taxation or tithes or 
whatever you like, on the ground that it has been handed 
down from the middle ages to the present time. Try 
to get them to believe it; try to get them to obey it, and 
you will find the difficulty. Is it credible to anyone who 
leaves books and theories in the study and takes a broad 
view of human nature with open eyes? I aver that for 
me, at any rate, it is not; and it will be a marvel to me as 
long as I am spared to live, how such a theory has 
ever gained the acceptance it has done among unques- 
tionably able and sound-minded men. I am convinced 
that the structure of the Bible vindicates itself, and that 
these counter theories break down. 


A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION 


I think it is an essential element in a tenable doctrine 
of Scripture, in fact the core of the matter, that it con- 
tains a record of a true supernatural revelation; and that 
is what the Bible claims to be—not a development of a 
man’s thoughts about God, and not what this man and 
that one came to think about God, how they came to have 
the ideas of a Jehovah or Yahveh, who was originally the 


128 SELECTED VAKIACLERS 


storm-god of Sinai, and how they manufactured out of 
this the great universal God of the prophets—but a super- 
natural revelation of what God revealed Himself in word 
and deed to men in history. And if that claim to a super- 
natural revelation from God falls, the Bible falls, because 
it is bound up with it from beginning to end. Now, it is 
just here that a great deal of our modern thought parts 
company with the Bible. I am quite well aware that 
many of our friends who accept these newer critical theo- 
ries, claim to be just as firm believers in divine revelation 
as Iam myself, and in Jesus Christ and all that concerns 
Him. I rejoice in the fact, and I believe that they are 
warranted in saying that there is that in the religion of 
Israel which you cannot expunge, or explain on any other 
hypothesis but divine revelation. 

But what I maintain is that this theory of the relig- 
ion of the Bible which has been evolved, which has pe- 
culiarly come to be known as the critical view, had a very 
different origin—in men who did not believe in the super- 
natural revelation of God in the Bible. This school as a 
whole, as a wide-spread school, holds the fundamental 
position—the position which its adherents call that of 
the modern mind—that miracles did not happen and can- 
not happen. It takes the ground that they are impos- 
sible; therefore its followers have to rule everything of 
that kind out of the Bible record. 

I have never been able to see how that position is ten- 
able to a believer in a living personal God who really 
loves His creatures and has a sincere desire to bless them. 
Who dare to venture to assert that the power and will 
of such a Being as we must believe God to be—the God 
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ—is exhausted in the 
natural creation? ‘That there are no higher things to be 
attained in God’s providence than can be attained 
through the medium of natural law? That there is in 
such a Being no capability of revealing Himself in words 
and deeds beyond nature? If there is a dogmatism in the 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 120 


world, it is that of the man who claims to limit the Au- 
thor of the universe by this finite bound. We are told 
sometimes that it is a far higher thing to see God in 
the natural than to see Him in something that transcends 
the natural; a far higher thing to see God in the orderly 
regular working of nature than to suppose that there has 
ever been anything transcending that ordinary natural 
working. I think we all do see God, and try to see Him 
more and more, in the ordinary and regular working of 
nature. I hope all try every day to see God there. But 
the question is, Has this natural working not its limits? 
Is there not something that nature and natural workings 
cannot reach, cannot do for men, that we need to have 
done for us? And are we so to bind God that He can- 
not enter into communion with man in a supernatural 
economy of grace, an economy of revelation, an econ- 
omy of salvation? Are we to deny that He has done so? 
That is really the dividing line both in Old Testament and 
New between the different theories. Revelation, surely, 
all must admit if man is to attain the clear knowledge of 
God that is needed; and the question is one of fact, Has 
God so revealed Himself? And I believe that it is an es- 
sential part of the answer, the true doctrine of Scripture, 
to say, “Yes, God has so revealed Himself, and the Bible 
is the record of that revelation, and that revelation shines 
in its light from the beginning to the end of it.” And un- 
less there is a wholehearted acceptance of the fact that 
God has entered, in word and deed, into human history 
for man’s salvation, for man’s renovation, for the deliv- 
erance of the world, a revelation culminating in the great 
Revealer Himself—unless we accept that, we do not get 
the foundation for the true doctrine of Holy Scripture. 


THE INSPIRED Book 


Now, just a word in closing, on Inspiration. I do not 
think that anyone will weigh the evidence of the Bible it- 
self very carefully without saying that at least it claims 


130 SELECTED ARTICLES 


to be in a peculiar and especial manner an inspired book. 
There is hardly anyone, I think, who will doubt that 
Jesus Christ treats the Old Testament in that way. Christ 
treats it as an imperfect stage of revelation, no doubt. 
Christ, as the Son of Man, takes up a lordly, discretion- 
ary attitude toward that revelation, and He supersedes 
very much what is in it by something higher, but Christ 
recognizes that there was true divine revelation there, 
that He was the goal oft all; He came to fulfil the law 
and the prophets. The Scriptures are the last word with 
Him—“Have ye not read?” “Ye do err, not knowing the 
Scriptures.” And it is just as certain that the Apostles 
treated the Old Testament in that way, and that they 
claimed in a peculiar sense the Spirit of God themselves. 
They claimed that in them and in their word was laid 
“the foundation on which the church was built,’ Jesus 
Christ Himself, as the substance of their testimony, being 
the chief corner-stone; “built upon the foundation of the 
Apostles and Prophets.” And if you say, “Well, are 
these New Testament Apostles and Prophets?’ ‘That is 
in Ephesians, 2nd chapter. You go to the fifth verse of the 
third chapter and you find this mystery of Christ which 
God had revealed to His holy Apostles and Prophets by 
His Spirit; and it is on that the church was built. And 
when you come to Timothy (2 Tim. 3:14-17) to that 
classical passage, you find the marks there by which in- 
spired Scripture is distinguished. 

Take the book of Scripture and ask just this question: 
Does it answer to the claim of this inspired volume? 
How are we to test this? I do not enter here into the 
question that has divided good men as to theories of in- 
spiration—questions about inerrancy in detail, and other 
matters. I want to get away from these-.things at the 
circumference to the center. But take the broader test. 


Tur BIBLE’s Own TEST oF INSPIRATION 


What does the Bible itself give us as the test of its 
inspiration? What does the Bible itself name as the quali- 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM | 131 


ties that inspiration imparts to it? Paul speaks in Tim- 
othy of the Sacred Writings that were able to make wise 
unto salvation through faith which 1s in Christ Jesus. He 
goes on to tell us that ALL Scripture is given by inspira- 
tion of God and 1s profitable for doctrine, for reproof, 
for correction, for mstruction, righteousness, in order that 
the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto 
all good works. When you go back to the Old Testament 
and its praise of the Word of God you will find the qual- 
ities of inspiration are just the same. ‘‘The law of the 
Lord is perfect,” etc. Those are the qualities which the 
inspired book is alleged to sustain—qualities which only 
a true inspiration of God’s spirit could give; qualities 
beyond which we surely do not need anything more. 

Does anyone doubt that the Bible possesses these 
qualities? Look at its structure; look at its completeness ; 
look at it in the clearness and fullness and holiness of its 
teachings; look at it 1n its sufficiency to guide every soul 
that truly seeks light unto the saving knowledge of God. 
Take the book as a whole, in its whole purpose, its whole 
spirit, its whole aim and tendency and the whole setting 
of it, and ask, is there not manifest the power which you 
can only trace back as it traces back itself, to God’s Holy 
Spirit really in the men who wrote it? 


BAIwACTE SOR Cow HIGHER CRITICISM: 


The errors of the higher criticism of which I shall 
write pertain to its very substance. Those of a secon- 
dary character the limits of my space forbid me to con- 
Siler as 


DEFINITION oF “THE HIGHER CRITICISM” 


As an introduction to the fundamental fallacies of the 
higher criticism, let me state what the higher criticism 


1 By Franklin Johnson, D.D., LL.D. The Fundamentals. Vol. II, chap- 
ter III. The insertions in brackets [ ] are Dr. Johnson’s footnotes, 


132 SELECTED VARTICUES 


is, and then what the higher critics tell us they have 
achieved. 

The name “the higher criticism” was coined by Eich- 
horn, who lived from 1752 to 1827. Zenos [‘“The Ele- 
ments of the Higher Criticism” ], after careful considera- 
tion, adopts the definition of the name given by its author: 
“The discovery and verification of the facts regarding 
the origin, form and value of literary productions upon 
the basis of their internal characters.” The higher critics 
are not blind to some other sources of argument. They 
refer to history where they can gain any polemic ad- 
vantage by doing so. The background of the entire pic- 
ture which they bring to us is the assumption that the 
hypothesis of evolution is true. But after all their chief 
appeal is to the supposed evidence of the documents 
themselves. 

Other names for the movement have been sought. 
It has been called the “historic view,” on the assumption 
that it represents the real history of the Hebrew people 
as it must have unfolded itself by the orderly processes 
of human evolution. But, as the higher critics con- 
tradict the testimony of all the Hebrew historic docu- 
ments which profess to be early, their theory might 
better be called the “unhistoric view.” The higher criti- 
cism has sometimes been called the “documentary hy- 
pothesis.”” But as all schools of criticism and all doc- 
trines of inspiration are equally hospitable to the sup- 
position that the biblical writers may have consulted 
documents, and may have quoted them, the higher 
criticism has no special right to this title. We must 
fall back, therefore, upon the name “the higher criticism” 
as the very best at our disposal, and upon the definition 
of it as chiefly an inspection of literary productions in 
order to ascertain their dates, their authors, and their 
value, as they themselves, interpreted in the light of the 
hypothesis of evolution, may vield the evidence, 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 133 


“ASSURED RESULTS” OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM 


I turn now to ask what the higher critics profess to 
have found out by this method of study. The ‘assured 
results” on which they congratulate themselves are 
stated variously. In this country and England they 
commonly assume a form less radical than that given 
them in Germany, though sufficiently startling and 
destructive to arouse vigorous protest and a vigorous 
demand for the evidences, which, as we shall see, have 
not been produced and cannot be produced. The less 
startling form of the “assured results” usually an- 
nounced in England and America may be owing to the 
brighter light of Christianity in these countries. Yet it 
should be noticed that there are higher critics in this 
country and England who go beyond the principal Ger- 
man representatives of the school in their zeal for the 
dethronement of the Old Testament and the New, in so 
far as these holy books are presented to the world as the 
very Word of God, as a special revelation from heaven. 

The following statement from Zenos [ Page 205] may 
serve to introduce us to the more moderate form of the 
“assured results” reached by the higher critics. It is con- 
cerning the analysis of the Pentateuch, or rather of the 
Hexateuch, the Book of Joshua being included in the sur- 
vey. “The Hexateuch is a composite work whose origin 
and history may be traced in four distinct stages: (1) A 
writer designated as J. Jahvist, or Jehovist, or Judean 
prophetic historian, composed a history of the people of 
Israel about 800 B.C. (2) A writer designated as E. Elo- 
hist, or Ephraemite prophetic historian, wrote a similar 
work some fifty years later, or about 750 B.C. These two 
were used separately for a time, but were fused together 
into JE by a redactor [an editor], at the end of the 
seventh century. (3) A writer of different character 
wrote a book constituting the main portion of our pres- 
ent Deuteronomy during the reign of Josiah, or a short 
time before 621 B.C. This writer is designated as D. 


134 SELECTED ARTICLES 


To his work were added an introduction and an appen- 
dix, and with these accretions it was united with JE 
by a second redactor, constituting JED. (4) Contem- 
poraneously with Ezekiel the ritual law began to be re- 
duced to writing. It first appeared in three parallel 
forms. These were codified by Ezra not very much 
earlier than 444 B.C., and between that date and 280 B.C. 
it was joined with JED by a final redactor. Thus no less 
than nine or ten men were engaged in the production 
of the Hexateuch in its present form, and each one can 
be distinguished from the rest by his vocabulary and style 
and his religious point of view.” 

Such is the analysis of the Pentateuch as usually 
stated in this country. But in Germany and Holland 
its chief representatives carry the division of labor much 
further. Wellhausen distributes the total task among 
twenty-two writers, and Kuenen among eighteen. Many 
others resolve each individual writer into a school of 
writers, and thus multiply the numbers enormously. 
There is no agreement among the higher critics concern- 
ing this analysis, and, therefore, the cautious learner may 
well wait till those who represent the theory tell him 
just what it is they desire him to learn. 

While some of the “assured results” are thus in 
doubt, certain things are matters of general agreement. 
Moses wrote little or nothing, if he ever existed. A large 
part of the Hexateuch consists of unhistorical legends. 
We may grant that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael and 
Esau existed, or we may deny this. In either case, what 
is recorded of them is chiefly myth. These denials of 
the written records follow as matters of course from 
the late dating of the books, and the assumption that the 
writers could set down only the national tradition. They 
may have worked in part as collectors of written stories 
to be found here and there; but, if so, these written 
stories were not ancient, and they were diluted by stories 
transmitted orally. These fragments, whether written 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 135 


or oral, must have followed the general law of national 
traditions, and have presented a mixture of legendary 
chaff, with here and there a grain of historic truth to 
be sifted out by careful winnowing. 

Thus far of the Hexateuch. 

The Psalms are so full of references to the Hexa- 
teuch that they must have been written after it, and 
hence after the captivity, perhaps beginning about 400 
B.C. David may possibly have written one or two of 
them, but probably he wrote none, and the strong con- 
viction of the Hebrew people that he was their greatest 
hymn-writer was a total mistake. 

These revolutionary processes are carried into the 
New Testament and that also is found to be largely un- 
trustworthy as history, as doctrine, and as ethics, though 
a very good book, since it gives expression to high ideals, 
and thus ministers to the spiritual life. It may well 
have influence, but it can have no divine authority. The 
Christian reader should consider carefully this invasion 
of the New Testament by the higher criticism. So long 
as the movement was confined to the Old Testament 
many good men looked on with indifference, not reflect- 
ing that the Bible, though containing “many parts” by 
many writers, and though recording a progressive reve- 
lation, is, after all, one book. But the limits of the 
Old Testament have long since been overpassed by the 
higher critics, and it is demanded of us that we abandon 
the immemorial teaching of the church concerning the en- 
tire volume. The picture of Christ which the New Testa- 
ment sets before us is in many respects mistaken. The 
doctrines of primitive Christianity which it states and de- 
fends were well enough for the time, but have no value 
for us today except as they commend themselves to our 
independent judgment. Its moral precepts are fallible, 
and we should accept them or reject them freely, in ac- 
cordance with the greater light of the twentieth century. 
Even Christ could err concerning ethical questions, and 


136 SHRUECTED PAR TIOLES 


neither His commandments nor His example need con- 
strain us. 

The foregoing may serve as an introductory sketch, 
all too brief, of the higher criticism, and as a basis of the 
discussion of its fallacies, now immediately to follow. 


First FALLAcY: THE ANALYSIS OF THE PENTATEUCH 


I. The first fallacy that I shall bring forward is 
its analysis of the Pentateuch. 

1. We cannot fail to observe that these various docu- 
ments and their various authors and editors are only 
imagined. As Green [“Moses and His Recent Critics.” 
pages 104, 105] has said, “There is no evidence of the 
existence of these documents and redactors, and no pre- 
tense of any, apart from the critical tests which have 
determined the analysis. All tradition and all historical 
testimony as to the origin of the Pentateuch are against 
them. The burden of proof is wholly upon the critics. 
And this proof should be clear and convincing in pro- 
portion to the gravity and the revolutionary character 
of the consequences which it is proposed to base upon it.’ 

2. Moreover, we know what can be done, or rather 
what cannot be done, in the analysis of composite literary 
productions. Some of the plays of Shakespeare are called 
his “mixed plays,’ because it is known that he col- 
laborated with another author in their production. The 
very keenest critics have sought to separate his part in 
these plays from the rest, but they confess that the re- 
sult is uncertainty and dissatisfaction. Coleridge pro- 
fessed to distinguish the passages contributed by Shakes- 
peare by a process of feeling, but Macaulay pronounced 
this claim to be nonsense, and the entire effort, whether 
made by the analysis of phraseology and style, or by 
esthetic perceptions, is an admitted failure. And this in 
spite of the fact that the style of Shakespeare is one of 
the most peculiar and inimitable. The Anglican Prayer 
Book is another composite production which the higher 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 137 


critics have often been invited to analyze and distribute 
to its various sources. Some of the authors of these 
sources lived centuries apart. They are now well known 
from the studies of historians. But the Prayer Book 
itself does not reveal one of them, though its various 
vocabularies and styles have been carefully interrogated. 
Now it the analysis of the Pentateuch can lead to such 
certainties, why should not the analysis of Shakespeare 
and the Prayer Book do as much? How can men accom- 
plish in a foreign language what they cannot accomplish 
in their own? How can they accomplish in a dead lan- 
guage what they cannot accomplish in a living language? 
How can they distinguish ten or eighteen or twenty-two 
collaborators in a small literary production when they 
cannot distinguish two? These questions have been asked 
many times, but the higher critics have given no answer 
whatever, preferring the safety of a learned silence; 


The oracles are dumb. 


3. Much has been made of differences of vocabulary 
in the Pentateuch, and elaborate lists of words have been 
_ assigned to each of the supposed authors. But these dis- 
tinctions fade away when subjected to careful scrutiny, 
and Driver admits that “the phraseological criteria... are 
slight.” Orr, [“The Problem of the Old Testament.” page 
230] who quotes this testimony, adds, “They are slight, 
in fact, to a degree of tenuity that often makes the 
recital of them appear like trifling.” 


SECOND FALLACY: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION 
APPLIED TO LITERATURE AND RELIGION 


II. A second fundamental fallacy of the higher 
criticism is its dependence on the theory of evolution as 
the explanation of the history of literature and of re- 
ligion. The progress of the higher criticism toward its 
present state has been rapid and assured since Vatke 
[““Die Biblische Theologie Wissenschaftlich Dargestellt” | 


138 SELECTED DARTIGLES 


_ discovered in the Hegelian philosophy of evolution a 
means of biblical criticism. The Spencerian philosophy 
of evolution, aided and reinforced by Darwinism, has 
added greatly to the confidence of the higher critics. As 
Vatke, one of the earlier members of the school, made 
the hypothesis of evolution the guiding presupposition 
of his critical work, so today does Professor Jordan 
[““Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought.” T. and T. 
Clark. 1909] the very latest representative of the higher 
criticism. “The nineteenth century,’ he declares, “has 
applied to the history of the documents of the Hebrew 
people its own magic word, evolution. The thought repre- 
sented by that popular word has been found to have a 
real meaning in our investigations regarding the religious 
life and the theological beliefs of Israel.” Thus, were 
there no hypothesis of evolution, there would be no 
higher criticism. The “assured results” of the higher 
criticism have been gained, after all, not by an induc- 
tive study of the biblical books to ascertain if they present 
a great variety of styles and vocabularies and religious 
points of view. They have been attained by assuming 
that the hypothesis of evolution is true, and that the - 
religion of Israel must have unfolded itself by a process 
of natural evolution. They have been attained by an in- 
terested cross-examination of the biblical books to con- 
strain them to admit the hypothesis of evolution. The 
imagination has played a large part in the process, and 
the so-called evidences upon which the “assured results” 
rest are largely imaginary. 

But the hypothesis of evolution, when applied to the 
history of literature, is a fallacy, leaving us utterly un- 
able to account for Homer, or Dante, or Shakespeare, 
the greatest poets of the world, yet all of them writing 
in the dawn of the great literatures of the world. It is 
a fallacy when applied to the history of religion, leaving 
us utterly unable to account for Abraham and Moses 
and Christ, and requiring us to deny that they could have 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 139 


been such men as the Bible declares them to have been. 
The hypothesis is a fallacy when applied to the history } 
of the human race in general. Our race has made prog- / 
ress under the influence of supernatural revelation; but 
progress under the influence of supernatural revelation 
is one thing, and evolution is another. Buckle [“History 
of Civilization in England’| undertook to account for 
history by a thorough-going application of the hypothesis 
of evolution to its problems; but no historian today be- 
lieves that he succeeded in his effort, and his work is uni- 
versally regarded as a brilliant curiosity. The types of 
evolution advocated by different higher critics are widely 
different from one another, varying from the pure natu- 
ralism of Wellhausen to the recognition of some feeble 
rays of supernatural revelation; but the hypothesis of 
evolution in any form, when applied to human history, 
blinds us and renders us incapable of beholding the glory 
of God in its more signal manifestations. 


THirp FALLACY: THE BrstE A NaturAt Book 


III. A third fallacy of the higher critics is the doc- 
trine concerning the Scriptures which they teach. If a 
consistent hypothesis of evolution is made the basis of 
our religious thinking, the Bible will be regarded-as only 
a product of human nature working in the field of relig- 
ious literature. It will be merely a natural_book. If 
there are higher critics who recoil from this application 
of the hypothesis of evolution and who seek to modify it 
by recognizing some special evidences of the divine in 
the Bible, the inspiration of which they speak rises but 
little higher than the providential guidance of the writers. 
The church doctrine of the full inspiration of the Bible 
is almost never held by the higher critics of any 
class, even of the more believing. Here and there we may 
discover one and another who try to save some frag- 
ments of the church doctrine, but they are few and far 


140 SELECTED “ARTICLES 


between, and the salvage to which they cling is so small 
and poor that it is scarcely worth while. Throughout 
their ranks the storm of opposition to the supernatural 
in all its forms is so fierce as to leave little place for the 
faith of the church that the Bible is the very Word of 
God to man. But the fallacy of this denial is evident to 
every believer who reads the Bible with an open mind. 
He knows by an immediate consciousness that it is the 
product of the Holy Spirit. As the sheep know the voice 
of the shepherd, so the mature Christian knows that the 
Bible speaks with a divine voice. On this ground every 
Christian can test the value of the higher criticism for 
himself. The Bible manifests itself to the spiritual per- 
ception of the Christian as in the fullest sense human, 
and in the fullest sense divine. This is true of the Old 
Testament, as well as of the New. 


FourtH FALLACY: THE MIRACLES DENIED 


IV. Yet another fallacy of the higher critics is 
found in their teachings concerning the Biblical miracles. 
If the hypothesis of evolution is applied to the Scriptures 
consistently, it will lead us to deny all the miracles which 
they record. But if applied timidly and waveringly, as 
it is by some of the English and American higher critics, 
it will lead us to deny a large part of the miracles, and 
to inject as much of the natural as is any way possible 
into the rest. We shall strain out as much of the gnat of 
the supernatural as we can, and swallow as much of the 
camel of evolution as we can. We shall probably reject 
all the miracles of the Old Testament, explaining some 
of them as popular legends, and others as coincidences. 
In the New Testament we shall pick and choose, and no 
two of us will agree concerning those to be rejected and 
those to be accepted. If the higher criticism shall be 
adopted as the doctrine of the church, believers will be 
left in a distressing state of doubt and uncertainty con- 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 141 


cerning the narratives of the four Gospels, and un- 
believers will scoff and mock. A theory which leads to 
such wanderings of thought regarding the supernatural 
in the Scriptures must be fallacious. God is not a God of 
confusion. 

Among the higher critics who accept some of the 
miracles there is a notable desire to discredit the virgin 
birth of our Lord, and their treatment of this event pre- 
sents a good example of the fallacies of reasoning by 
means of which they would abolish many of the other 
miracles. One feature of their argument may suffice as 
an exhibition of all. It is the search for parallels in the 
pagan mythologies. There are many instances in the pa- 
gan stories of the birth of men from human mothers and 
divine fathers, and the higher critics would create the 
impression that the writers who record the birth of Christ 
were influenced by these fables to emulate them, and thus 
to secure for Him the honor of a celestial paternity. It 
turns out, however, that these pagan fables do not in any 
case present to us a virgin mother; the child is always the 
product of commerce with a god who assumes a human 
form for the purpose. The despair of the higher critics 
in this hunt for events of the same kind is well illustrated 
by Cheyne, [“Bible Problems.” page 86] who cites the 
record of the Babylonian king Sargon, about 3800 B.C. 
This monarch represents himself as having “been born 
of a poor mother in secret, and as not knowing his 
father.” There have been millions of such instances, 
but we do not think of the mothers as virgins. Nor 
does the Babylonian story affirm that the mother of Sar- 
gon was a virgin, or even that his father was a god. It 
is plain that Sargon did not intend to claim a super- 
natural origin, for, after saying that he “did not know 
his father,’ he adds that “the brother of his father 
lived in the mountains.” It was a case, like multitudes of 
others, in which children, early orphaned, have not known 
their fathers, but have known the relations of their 


142 SELECTED ARTICLES 


fathers. This statement of Sargon I quote from a trans- 
lation of it made by Cheyne himself in the “Encyclopedia 
Biblica.”’ He continues, “There is reason to suspect that 
something similar was originally said by the Israelites 
of Moses.” To substantiate this he adds, “See Encyclo- 
pedia Biblica, ‘Moses,’ section 3 with note 4.” On turn- 
ing to this reference the reader finds that the article was 
written by Cheyne himself, and that it contains no evi- 
dence whatever. 


FirrH FAtitacy: THe TESTIMONY oF ARCHAEOLOGY 
DENIED 


V. The limitation of the field of research as far as 
possible to the biblical books as literary productions has 
rendered many of the higher critics reluctant to admit 
the new light derived from archaeology. This is granted 
by Cheyne [“Bible Problems.” page 142]. “I have no 
wish to deny,” he says, “that the so-called ‘higher critics’ 
in the past were as a rule suspicious of Assyriology as a 
young, and, as they thought, too self-assertive science, 
and that many of those who now recognize its contri- 
butions to knowledge are somewhat too mechanical in 
the use of it, and too skeptical as to the influence of 
Babylonian culture in relatively early times in Syria, 
Palestine and even Arabia.” This grudging recognition 
of the testimony of archaeology may be observed in sev- 
eral details. 

1. It was said that the Hexateuch must have been 
formed chiefly by the gathering up of oral traditions, 
because it is not to be supposed that the early Hebrews 
possessed the art of writing and of keeping records. 
But the entire progress of archaeological study refutes 
this. In particular the discovery of the Tel el-Amarna 
tablets has shown that writing in cuneiform characters 
and in the Assyrio-Babylonian language was common to 
the entire biblical world long before the exodus. The 
discovery was made by Egyptian peasants in 1887. There 
are more than three hundred tablets, which came from 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 143 


various lands, including Babylonia and Palestine. Other 
finds have added their testimony to the fact that writing 
and the preservation of records were the peculiar pas- 
sions of the ancient civilized world. Under the con- 
straint of the overwhelming evidences, Professor Jordan 
writes as follows: “The question as to the age of writ- 
ing never played a great part in the discussion.” He 
falls back on the supposition that the nomadic life of the 
early Hebrews would prevent them from acquiring the 
art of writing. He treats us to such reasoning as the 
following: “If the fact that writing is very old is such 
a powerful argument when taken alone, it might enable 
you to prove that Alfred the Great wrote Shakespeare’s 
plays.” 

2. It was easy to treat Abraham as a mythical figure 
when the early records of Babylonia were but little 
known. The entire coloring of those chapters of Genesis 
which refer to Mesopotamia could be regarded as the 
product of the imagination. This is no longer the case. 
Thus Clay, [“Light on the Old Testament from Babel.” 
1907. Clay is Assistant Professor and Assistant Curator 
of the Babylonian Section, Department of Archaeology, 
in the University of Pennsylvania] writing of Genesis 
14, says: “The theory of the late origin of all the Hebrew 
Scriptures prompted the critics to declare this narrative 
to be a pure invention of a later Hebrew writer... . 
The patriarchs were relegated to the region of myth and 
legend. Abraham was made a fictitious father of the 
Hebrews. . . . Even the political situation was declared 
to be inconsistent with fact... . Weighing carefully the 
position taken by the critics in the light of what has been 
revealed through the decipherment of the cuneiform in- 
scriptions, we find that the very foundations upon which 
their theories rest, with reference to the points that could 
be tested, totally disappear. The truth is that wherever 
any light has been thrown upon the subject through ex- 
cavations, their hypotheses have invariably been found 
wanting.” But the higher critics are still reluctant to 


144 SELECTED ARTICLES 


admit this new light. Thus Kent [Biblical World, De 
cember, 1906] says, “The primary value of these stories 
is didactic and religious, rather than historical” 

3. The books of Joshua and Judges have been re- 
garded by the higher critics as unhistorical on the ground 
that their portraiture oi the political, religious, and social 
condition of Palestine in the thirteenth century B-C. is 
incredible. This cannot be said any longer, for the re- 
cent excavations in Palestine have shown us a land 
exactly like that of these books. The portraiture is so 
precise, and is drawn out im so many mimute lmeaments, 
that it cannot be the product of oral tradition floating 
down through a thousand years. In what details the 
accuracy of the biblical picture oi early Palestine is ex- 
hibited may be seen perhaps best in the excavations by 
Macalister [“Bible Side-Lights from the Mound of 
Gezer”] at Gezer. Here again there are absolutely no 
ciscrepancies between the land and the book, for the 
land lifts up a thousand voices to testify that the book 
is history and not legend. 

4. It was held by the higher critics that the legisla- 
tion which we call Mosaic could not have been produced 
by Moses, since his age was too early for such codes. 
This reasoning was completely negatived by the discov- 
ery of the code of Hammurabi, the Amraphel [On this 
matter see any dictionary oi the Bible, art. “Amraphel”] 
oi Genesis 14. This code is very different from that of 
Moses; it is more systematic; and it is at least seven 
hundred years earlier than the Mosaic legislation. 

In short, from the origin of the higher criticism till 
this present time the discoveries in the field of archaeol- 
ogy have given it a succession of serious blows. The 
higher critics were shocked when the passion of the 
ancient world for writing and the preservation of docu- 
ments was discovered. They were shocked when primi- 
tive Babylonia appeared as the land of Abraham. They 
were shocked when early Palestine appeared as the land 





FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 145 


of Joshua and the Judges. They were shocked when 
Amraphel came back from the grave as a real historical 
character, bearing his code of laws. They were shocked 
when the stele of the Pharaoh of the exodus was read, 
and it was proved that he knew a people called Israel, 
that they had no settled place of abode, that they were 
“without grain” for food, and that in these particulars 
they were quite as they are represented by the Scrip- 
tures to have been when they had fled from Egypt into 
the wilderness. [The higher critics usually slur over this 
remarkable inscription, and give us neither an accurate 
translation nor a natural interpretation of it. I have, 
therefore, special pleasure in quoting the following from 
Driver, “Authority and Archaeology.” page 61: ‘““Where- 
as the other places named in the inscription all have 
the determinative for ‘country, Ysiraal has the deter- 
minative for ‘men’: it follows that the reference is not 
to the land of Israel, but to Israel as a tribe or people, 
whether migratory, or on the march.” Thus this dis- 
tinguished higher critic sanctions the view of the record 
which I have adopted. He represents Maspero and 
Naville as doing the same.] The embarrassment created 
by these discoveries is manifest in many of the recent 
writings of the higher critics, in which, however, they 
still cling heroically to their analysis and their late dating 
of the Pentateuch and their confidence in the hypothesis 
of evolution as the key of all history. 


SixtH FALLACY: THE PSALMS WRITTEN AFTER THE 
EXILE 


VI. The Psalms are usually dated by the higher 
critics after the exile. The great majority of the higher 
critics are agreed here, and tell us that these varied and 
touching and magnificent lyrics of religious experience 
all come to us from a period later than 450 B.C. A few 
of the critics admit an earlier origin of three or four of 
them, but they do this waveringly, grudgingly, and against 


146 SELECTED WARTICLES 


the general consensus of opinion among their fellows. In 
the Bible a very large number of the Psalms are ascribed 
to David, and these, with a few insignificant and doubt- 
ful exceptions, are denied to him and brought down, like 
the rest, to the age of the second temple. This leads me 
to the following observations: 

1. Who wrote the Psalms? Here the higher critics 
have no answer. Of the period from 400 to 175 B.C. 
we are in almost total ignorance. Josephus knows al- 
most nothing about it, nor has any other writer told us 
more. Yet, according to the theory, it was precisely in 
these centuries of silence, when the Jews had no great 
writers, that they produced this magnificent outburst of 
sacred song. 

2. This is the more remarkable when we consider 
the well known men to whom the theory denies the au- 
thorship of any of the Psalms. The list includes such 
names as Moses, David, Samuel, Nathan, Solomon, 
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the long list of pre-exilic prophets. 
We are asked to believe that these men composed no 
Psalms, and that the entire collection was contributed by 
men so obscure that they have left no single name by 
which we can identify them with their work. 

3. This will appear still more extraordinary if we 
consider the times in which, it is said, no Psalms were 
produced, and contrast them with the times in which 
all of them were produced. The times in which none 
were produced were the great times, the times of growth, 
of mental ferment, of conquest, of imperial expansion, 
of disaster, and of recovery. The times in which none 
were produced were the times of the splendid temple of 
Solomon, with its splendid worship. The times in which 
none were produced were the heroic times of Elijah and 
Elisha, when the people of Jehovah struggled for their 
existence against the abominations of the pagan gods. 
On the other hand, the times which actually produced 
them were the times of growing legalism, of obscurity, 
and of inferior abilities. All this is incredible. We could 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 147 


believe it only if we first came to believe that the Psalms 
are works of slight literary and religious value. This is 
actually done by Wellhausen, who says, [Quoted by Orr. 
“The Problem of the Old Testament.” page 435] “They 
certainly are to the smallest extent original, and are for 
the most part imitations which illustrate the saying about 
much writing.” The Psalms are not all of an equally 
high degree of excellence, and there are a few of them 
which might give some faint color of justice to this de- 
preciation of the entire collection. But as a whole they 
are exactly the reverse of this picture. Furthermore, 
they contain absolutely no legalism, but are as free from 
it as are the Sermon on the Mount and the Pauline 
epistles. Yet further, the writers stand out as person- 
alities, and they must have left a deep impression upon 
their fellows. Finally, they were full of the fire of 
genius kindled by the Holy Spirit. It is impossible for 
us to attribute the Psalms to the unknown mediocrities 
of the period which followed the restoration. 

4. Very many of the Psalms plainly appear to be 
ancient. ‘They sing of early events, and have no trace 
of allusion to the age which is said to have produced 
them. 

5. The large number of Psalms attributed to David 
have attracted the special attention of the higher critics. 
They are denied to him on various grounds. He was a 
wicked man, and hence incapable of writing these praises 
to the God of righteousness. He was an iron warrior 
and statesman, and hence not gifted with the emotions 
found in these productions. He was so busy with the 
cares of conquest and administration that he had no 
leisure for literary work. Finally, his conception of God 
was utterly different from that which moved the 
psalmists. 

The larger part of this catalog of inabilities is mani- 
festly erroneous. David, with some glaring faults, and 
with a single enormous crime, for which he was pro- 
foundly penitent, was one of the noblest of men. He 


i48 SELECTED ARTICLES 


was indeed an iron warrior and statesman, but also one 
of the most emotional of all great historic characters. 
He was busy, but busy men not seldom find relief in lit- 
erary occupations, as Washington, during the Revolu- 
tionary War, poured forth a continual tide of letters, 
and as Cesar, Marcus Aurelius, and Gladstone, while 
burdened with the cares of empire, composed immortal 
books. The conception of God with which David began 
his career was indeed narrow (I. Sam. 26:19). But did 
he learn nothing in all his later experiences, and his as- 
sociations with holy priests and prophets? He was cer- 
tainly teachable: did God fail to make use of him in 
further revealing Himself to His people? To deny these 
Psalms to David on the ground of his limited views of 
God in his early life, is this not to deny that God made 
successive revelations of Himself wherever He found 
suitable channels? If, further, we consider the unques- 
tioned skill of David in the music of his nation and his 
age (I. Sam. 16:14-25), this will constitute a presup- 
position in favor of his interest in sacred song. If, 
finally, we consider his personal career of danger and 
deliverance, this will appear as the natural means of 
awakening in him the spirit of varied religious poetry. 
His times were much like the Elizabethan period, which 
ministered unexampled stimulus to the English mind. 

From all this we may turn to the singular verdict 
of Professor Jordan: “If a man says he cannot see why 
David could not have written Psalms 51 and 139, you 
are compelled to reply as politely as possible that if he 
did write them then any man can write anything.” So 
also we may say, “as politely as possible,” that if Shake- 
speare, with his “small Latin and less Greek,” did write 
his incomparable dramas, “then any man can write any- 
thing ;” that if Dickens, with his mere elementary edu- 
cation, did write his great novels, “then any man can 
write anything;” and that if Lincoln, who had no early 
schooling, did write his Gettysburg address, “then any 
man can write anything.” 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 149 


SEVENTH FALLACY: DEUTERONOMY Not WRITTEN BY 
MOosES 


VII. One of the fixed points of the higher criticism 
is its theory of the origin of Deuteronomy. In I. Kings 
22 we have the history of the finding of the book of the 
law in the temple, which was being repaired. Now the 
higher critics present this finding, not as the discovery 
of an ancient document, but as the finding of an entirely 
new document, which had been concealed in the temple 
in order that it might be found, might be accepted as 
the production of Moses, and might produce an effect 
by its assumed authorship. It is not supposed for a mo- 
ment that the writer innocently chose the fictitious dress 
of Mosaic authorship for merely literary purposes. On 
the contrary, it is steadfastly maintained that he intended 
to deceive, and that others were with him in the plot to 
deceive. This statement of the case leads me to the 
following reflections: 

1. According to the theory, this was an instance of 
pious fraud. And the fraud must have been prepared 
deliberately. The manuscript must have been soiled and 
frayed by special care, for it was at once admitted to 
be ancient. This supposition of deceit must always repel 
the Christian believer. 

2. Our Lord draws from the Book of Deuteronomy 
all the three texts with which He foils the tempter, 
Matt. 4: 1-11, Luke 4:1-14. It must always shock the 
devout student that his Saviour should select His weapons 
from an armory founded on deceit. 

3. This may be called an appeal to ignorant piety, 
rather than to scholarly criticism. But surely the moral 
argument should have some weight in scholarly criticism. 
In the sphere of religion moral impossibilities are as in- 
superable as physical and mental. 

4. If we turn to consideration of a literary kind, it 
is to be observed that the higher criticism runs counter 
here to the statement of the book itself that Moses was 
its author. 


150 SELECTED } ARTICLES 


5. It runs counter to the narrative of the finding of 
the book, and turns the finding of an ancient book into 
the forgery of a new book. 

6. It runs counter to the judgment of all the in- 
telligent men of the time who learned of the discovery. 
They judged the book to have come down from the 
Mosaic age, and to be from the pen of Moses. We hear 
of no dissent whatever. 

7. It seeks support in a variety of reasons, such as 
style, historical discrepancies, and legal contradictions, all 
of which prove of little substance when examined fairly. 


EIGHTH FALLACY: THE PRIESTLY LEGISLATION NOT 
ENACTED UNTIL THE EXILE 


VIII. Another case of forgery is found in the origin 
of the priestly legislation, if we are to believe the higher 
critics. This legislation is contained in a large number 
of passages scattered through Exodus, Leviticus, and 
Numbers. It has to do chiefly with the tabernacle and 
its worship, with the duties of the priests and Levites, 
and with the relations of the people to the institutions 
of religion. It is attributed to Moses in scores of places. 
It has a strong coloring of the Mosaic age and of the 
wilderness life. It affirms the existence of the taber- 
nacle, with an orderly administration of the ritual serv- 
ices. But this is all imagined, for the legislation is a late 
production. Before the exile there were temple services 
and a priesthood, with certain regulations concerning 
them, either oral or written, and use was made of this 
tradition; but as a whole the legislation was enacted by 
such men as Ezekiel and Ezra during and immediately 
after the exile, or about 444 B.C. The name of Moses, 
the fiction of a tabernacle, and the general coloring of the 
Mosaic age, were given it in order to render it authori- 
tative and to secure the ready obedience of the nation. 
But now: 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 151 


1. The moral objection here is insuperable. The 
supposition of forgery, and of forgery so cunning, so 
elaborate, and so minute, is abhorrent. If the forgery 
had been invented and executed by wicked men to pro- 
mote some scheme of selfishness, it would have been 
less odious. But when it is presented to us as the ex- 
pedient of holy men, for the advancement of the re- 
ligion of the God of righteousness, which afterward 
blossomed out into Christianity, we must revolt. 


2. The theory gives us a portraiture of such men as 
Ezekiel and Ezra which is utterly alien from all that we 
know of them. The expedient might be worthy of the 
prophets of Baal or of Chemosh; it was certainly not 
worthy of the prophets of Jehovah, and we dishonor 
them when we attribute it to them and place them upon 
a low plane of craft and cunning of which the records 
concerning them are utterly ignorant. 

3. The people who returned from the exile were 
among the most intelligent and enterprising of the na- 
tion, else they would not have returned, and they would 
not have been deceived by the sudden appearance of 
Mosaic laws forged for the occasion and never before 
heard of. 


_ 4. Many of the regulations of this legislation are 
drastic. It subjected the priests and Levites to a rule 
which must have been irksome in the extreme, and it 
would not have been lightly accepted. We may be cer- 
tain that if it had been a new thing fraudulently ascribed 
to Moses, these men would have detected the deceit, and 
would have refused to be bound by it. But we do not 
hear of any revolt or even of any criticism. 

Such are some of the fundamental fallacies of the 
higher criticism. They constitute an array of impos- 
sibilities. I have stated them in their more moderate 
forms, that they may be seen and weighed without the 
remarkable extravagances which some of their advocates 


152 SELECTED ARTICLES 


indulge. In the very mildest interpretation which can 
be given them, they are repugnant to the Christian faith. 


No MippLe GROUND 


But might we not accept a part of this system of 
thought without going to any hurtful extreme? Many 
today are seeking to do this. They present to us two 
diverse results. 

1. Some, who stand at the beginning of the tide, 
find themselves in a position of doubt. If they are lay- 
men, they know not what to believe. If they are min- 
isters, they know not what to believe: or to teach. In 
either case, they have no firm footing, and no Gospel, 
except a few platitudes which do little harm and little 
good. 

2. The majority of those who struggle to stand here 
find it impossible to do so, and give themselves up to the 
current. There is intellectual consistency in the lofty 
church doctrine of inspiration. There may be intellectual 
consistency in the doctrine that all things have had a 
natural origin and history, under the general providence 
of God, as distinguished from His supernatural reve- 
lation of Himself through holy men, and especially 
through His co-equal Son, so that the Bible is as little 
supernatural as the “Imitation of Christ” or the “Pil- 
grim’s Progress.” But there is no position of intellectual 
consistency between these two, and the great mass of 
those who try to pause at various points along the de- 
scent are swept down with the current. The natural 
view of the Scriptures is a sea which has been rising 
higher for three-quarters of a century. Many Christians 
bid it welcome to pour lightly over the walls which the 
faith of the church has always set up against it, in the 
expectation that it will prove a healthful and helpful 
stream. It is already a cataract, uprooting, destroying, 
and slaying. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 153 


THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE— 
DEFINITION, EXTENT AND PROOF + 


In this paper the authenticity and credibility of the 
Bible are assumed, by which is meant (1), that its books 
were written by the authors to whom they are ascribed, 
and that their contents are in all material points as 
when they came from their hands; and (2), that those 
contents are worthy of entire acceptance as to their 
statements of fact. Were there need to prove these 
assumptions, the evidence is abundant, and abler pens 
have dealt with it. 

Let it not be supposed, however, that because these 
things are assumed their relative importance is under- 
valued. On the contrary, they underlie inspiration, and, 
as President Patton says, come in on the ground floor. 
They have to do with the historicity of the Bible, which 
for us just now is the basis of its authority. Nothing 
can be settled until this is settled, but admitting its settle- 
ment which, all things considered, we now may be per- 
mitted to do, what can be of deeper interest than the 
question as to how far that authority extends? 

This is the inspiration question, and while so many 
have taken in hand to discuss the others, may not one be 
at liberty to discuss this? It is an old question, so old, 
indeed, as again in the usual recurrence of thought to 
have become new. Our fathers discussed it, it was the 
great question once upon a time, it was sifted to the 
bottom, and a great storehouse of fact, and argument, 
and illustration has been left for us to draw upon in 
a day of need. 

For a long while the enemy’s attack has directed our 
energies to another part of the field, but victory there 
will drive us back here again. The other questions are 
outside of the Bible itself, this is inside. They lead men 


1 By Rev. James M. Gray, D.D., Dean of Moody Bible Institute, Chi- 
cago. The Fundamentals. Vol. Ill, chapter I. 


154 SELECTED ARTICLES 


away from the contents of the book to consider how 
they came, this brings us back to consider what they 
are. Happy the day when the inquiry returns here, and 
happy the generation which has not forgotten how to 
meet it. 


I. DEFINITION OF INSPIRATION 


1. Inspiration 1s not revelation. As Dr. Charles 
Hodge expressed it, revelation is the act of communicat- 
ing divine knowledge to the mind, but inspiration is the 
act of the same Spirit controlling those who make that 
knowledge known to others. In Chalmer’s happy phrase, 
the one is the influx, the other the efflux. Abraham re- 
ceived the influx, he was granted a revelation; but Moses 
was endued with the efflux, being inspired to record it 
for our learning. In the one case there was a flowing 
in and in the other a flowing out. Sometimes both of 
these experiences met in the same person, indeed Moses 
himself is an illustration of it, having received a revela- 
tion at another time and also the inspiration to make 
it known, but it is of importance to distinguish between 
the two. 

2. Inspiration is not illumination. Every regenerated 
Christian is illuminated in the simple fact that he is 
indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but every such an one is not 
also inspired, but only the writers of the Old and New 
Testaments. Spiritual illumination is subject to degrees, 
some Christians possessing more of it than others, but, 
as we understand it, inspiration is not subject to degrees, 
being in every case the breath of God, expressing itself 
through a human personality. 

3. Inspiration is not human genius. The latter is 
simply a natural qualification, however exalted it may be 
in some cases, but inspiration in the sense now spoken 
of is supernatural throughout. It is an enduement com- 
ing upon the writers of the Old and New Testaments 
directing and enabling them to write those books, and 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 155 


on no other men, and at no other time, and for no other 
purpose. No human genius of whom we ever heard 
introduced his writings with the formula, “Thus saith 
the Lord,’ or words to that effect, and yet such is the 
common utterance of the Bible authors. No human 
genius ever yet agreed with any other human genius as 
to the things it most concerns men to know, and, there- 
fore, however exalted his equipment, it differs not merely 
in degree but in kind from the inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures. 

In its mode the divine agency is inscrutable, though 
its effects are knowable. We do not undertake to say 
just how the Holy Spirit operated on the minds of these 
authors to produce these books any more than we under- 
take to say how He operates on the human heart to pro- 
duce conversion, but we accept the one as we do the 
other on the testimony that appeals to faith. 

4. When we speak of the Holy Spirit coming upon 
the men in order to the composition of the books, it 
should be further understood that the object 1s not the 
imspiration of the men but the books—not the writers but 
the writings. It terminates upon the record, in other 
words, and not upon the human instrument who made it. 

To illustrate: Moses, David, Paul, John, were not al- 
ways and everywhere inspired, for then always and every- 
where they would have been infallible and inerrant, which 
was not the case. They sometimes made mistakes in 
thought and erred in conduct. But however fallible and 
errant they may have been as men compassed with in- 
firmity like ourselves, such fallibility or errancy was 
never under any circumstances communicated to their 
sacred writings. 

Ecclesiastes is a case in point, which on the sup- 
position of its Solomonic authorship, is giving us a his- 
tory of his search for happiness “under the sun.” Some 
statements in that book are only partially true while 
others are altogether false, therefore it cannot mean that 
Solomon was inspired as he tried this or that experiment 


150 SELECTED ARTICLES 


to find what no man has been able to find outside of 
God. But it means that his language is inspired as he 
records the various feelings and opinions which pos- 
sessed him in the pursuit. 

This disposes of a large class of objections sometimes 
brought against the doctrine of inspiration—those, for 
example, associated with the question as to whether the 
Bible is the Word of God or only contains that Word. 
If by the former be meant that God spake every word 
in the Bible, and hence that every word is true, the an- 
swer must be no; but if it be meant that God caused 
every word in the Bible, true or false, to be recorded, 
the answer should be yes. There are words of Satan 
in the Bible, words of false prophets, words of the 
enemies of Christ, and yet they are God’s words, not in 
the sense that He uttered them, but that He caused them 
to be recorded, infallibly and inerrantly recorded, for 
our profit. In this sense the Bible does not merely con- 
tain the Word of God, it 1s the Word of God. 

Of any merely human author it is the same. This 
paper is the writers word throughout, and yet he may 
quote what other people say to commend them or dis- 
pute them. What they say he records, and in doing so 
he makes the record his in the sense that he is responsible 
for its accuracy. 

5. Let it be stated further in this definitional con- 
nection, that the record for whose mspiration we con- 
tend is the original record—the autographs or parch- 
ments.of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter, 
as the case may be, and not any particular translation 
or translations of them whatever. There is no transla- 
tion absolutely without error, nor could there be, con- 
sidering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God 
were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it. 

But does this make nugatory our contention? Some 
would say it does, and they would argue speciously that 
to insist on the inerrancy of a parchment no living being 
has ever seen is an academic question merely, and with- 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 157 


out value. But do they not fail to see that the character 
and perfection of the Godhead are involved in that in- 
errancy? 

Some years ago a “liberal” theologian, deprecating this 
discussion as not worth while, remarked that it was a 
matter of small consequence whether a pair of trousers 
were originally perfect if they were now rent. To which 
the valiant and witty David James Burrell replied, that 
it might be a matter of small consequence to the wearer 
of the trousers, but the tailor who made them would 
prefer to have it understood that they did not leave his 
shop that way. And then he added, that if the Most High 
must train among knights of the shears He might at 
least be regarded as the best of the guild, and One who 
drops no stitches and sends out no imperfect work. 

Is it not with the written Word as with the incarnate 
Word? Is Jesus Christ to be regarded as imperfect be- 
cause His character has never been perfectly reproduced 
before us? Can He be the incarnate Word unless He 
were absolutely without sin? And by the same token, 
can the Scriptures be the written Word unless they were 
inerrant? 

But if this question be so purely speculative and value- 
less, what becomes of the science of Biblical criticism 
by which properly we set such store today? Do builders 
drive piles into the soft earth if they never expect to 
touch bottom?’ Do scholars dispute about the Scripture 
text and minutely examine the history and meaning of 
single words, “the delicate coloring of mood, tense and 
accent,” if at the end there is no approximation to an 
absolute? As Dr. George H. Bishop says, does not our 
concordance, every time we take it up, speak loudly to 
us of a once inerrant parchment? Why do we not pos- 
sess concordances for the very words of other books? 

Nor is that original parchment so remote a thing as 
some suppose. Do not the number and variety of manu- 
scripts and versions extant render it comparatively easy 
to arrive at a knowledge of its text, and does not com- 


158 SELECTED ARTICLES 


petent scholarship today affirm that as to the New Testa- 
ment at least, we have in nine hundred and ninety-nine 
cases out of every thousand the very word of that orig- 
inal text? Let candid consideration be given to these 
things and it will be seen that we are not pursuing a 
phantom in contending for an inspired autograph of the 
Bible. 


Il. EXTENT oF INSPIRATION 


1. The mspiration. of scripture mcludes the whole 
and every part of it. There are some who deny this and 
limit it to only the prophetic portions, the words of 
Jesus Christ, and, say, the profounder spiritual teachings 
of the epistles. The historical books in their judgment, 
and as an example, do not require inspiration because 
their data were obtainable from natural sources. 

The Bible itself, however, knows of no limitations, 
as we shall see: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of 
God.” The historical data, most of it at least, might 
have been obtained from natural sources, but what about 
the supernatural guidance required in their selection and 
narration? Compare, for answer, the records of crea- 
tion, the fall, the deluge, etc., found in Genesis with 
those recently discovered by excavations in Bible lands. 
Do not the results of the pick-axe and the spade point 
to the same original as the Bible, and yet do not their 
childishness and grotesqueness ofter bear evidence of the 
human and sinful mould through which they ran? Do 
they not show the need of some power other than man 
himself to lead him out of the labyrinth of error into 
the open ground of truth? 

Furthermore, are not the historical books in some 
respects the most important in the Bible? Are they not 
the bases of its doctrine? Does not the doctrine of sin 
need for its starting point the record of the fall? Could 
we so satisfactorily understand justification did we not 
have the story of God’s dealings with Abraham? And 
what of the priesthood of Christ? Dismiss Leviticus 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 159 


and what can be made of Hebrews? Is not the Acts 
of the Apostles historical, but can we afford to lose its 
inspiration? 

And then, too, the historical books are, in many cases, 
prophetical as well as historical. Do not the types and 
symbols in them show forth the Saviour in all the vary- 
ing aspects of His Grace? Has not the story of Israel 
the closest relation as type and anti-type to our spiritual 
redemption? Does not Paul teach this in 1 Cor. 10: 6-11? 
And if these things were thus written for our learning, 
does not this imply their inspiration? 

Indeed, the historical books have the strongest testi- 
mony borne to their importance in other parts of the 
Bible. This will appear more particularly as we proceed, 
but take, in passing, Christ’s use of Deuteronomy in His 
conflict with the tempter. Thrice does He overcome him 
by a citation from that historical book without note or 
comment. Is it not difficult to believe that neither He 
nor Satan considered it inspired? 

Thus without going further, we may say, with Dr. 
DeWitt of Princeton, that it is impossible to secure the 
religious infallibility of the Bible—which is all the ob- 
jector regards as necessary—if we exclude Bible history 
from the sphere of its inspiration. But if we include 
Bible history at all, we must include the whole of it, for 
who is competent to separate its parts? 

2. The imspiration includes not only all the books of 
the Bible in general but in detail, the form as well as the 
substance, the word as well as the thought. This is some- 
times called the verbal theory of inspiration and is ve- 
hemently spoken against in some quarters. It is too 
mechanical, it degrades the writers to the level of ma- 
chines, it has a tendency to make skeptics, and all that. 

This last remark, however, is not so alarming as it 
sounds. The doctrine of the eternal retribution of the 
wicked is said to make skeptics, and also that of a vicari- 
ous atonement, not to mention other revelations of Holy 
Writ. The natural mind takes to none of these things. 


160 SELECTED ARTICLES 


But if we are not prepared to yield the point in one case 
for such a reason, why should we be asked to do it in 
another? 

And as to degrading the writers to the level of ma- 
chines, even if it were true, as it is not, why should 
fault be found when one considers the result? Which 
is the more important, the free agency of a score or two 
of mortals, or the divinity of their message? The whole 
argument is just a spark from the anvil on which the 
race is ever trying to hammer out the deification of 
itself. 

But we are insisting upon no theory—not even the 
verbal theory—if it altogether excludes the human ele- 
ment in the transmission of the sacred word. As Dr. 
Henry B. Smith says, “God speaks through the person- 
ality as well as the lips of His messengers,” and we may 
pour into the word “personality” everything that goes 
to make it—the age in which the person lived, his en- 
vironment, his degree of culture, his temperament and 
all the rest. As Wayland Hoyt expressed it, “Inspiration 
is not a mechanical, crass, bald compulsion of the sacred 
writers, but rather a dynamic, divine influence over their 
freely-acting faculties” in order that the latter in rela- 
tion to the subject-matter then in hand may be kept 
inerrant, 7.e., without mistake or fault. It is limiting the 
Holy One of Israel to say that He is unable to do this 
without turning a human being into an automaton. Has 
He Who created man as a free agent left Himself no 
opportunity to mould his thoughts into forms of speech 
inerrantly expressive of His will, without destroying that 
which He has made? 

And, indeed, wherein resides man’s free agency, in 
his mind or in his mouth? Shall we say he is free while 
God controls his thought, but that he becomes a mere 
machine when that control extends to the expression of 
his thought? 

But returning to the argument, if the divine influence 
upon the writers did not extend to the form as well as 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 161 


the substance of their writings; if, in other words, God 
gave them only the thought, permitting them to express 
it in their own words, what guarantee have we that they 
have done so? 

An illustration the writer has frequently used will 
help to make this clear. A stenographer in a mercantile 
house was asked by his employer to write as follows: 

Gentlemen: We misunderstood your letter and will now fill 
your order. 

Imagine the employer’s surprise, however, when a 
little later this was set before him for his signature: 

Gentlemen: We misunderstood your letter and will not fill 
your order. 

The mistake was only of a single letter, but it was 
entirely subversive of his meaning. And yet the thought 
was given clearly to the stenographer, and the words, 
too, for that matter. Moreover, the latter was capable 
and faithful, but he was human, and it is human to err. 
Had not his employer controlled his expression down to 
the very letter, the thought intended to be conveyed would 
have failed of utterance. 

In the same way the human authors of the Bible 
were men of like passions with ourselves. Their mo- 
tives were pure, their intentions good, but even if their 
subject-matter were the commonplaces of men, to say 
nothing of the mysterious and transcendent revelation 
of a holy God, how could it be an absolute transcript 
of the mind from which it came in the absence of mirac- 
ulous control? 

In the last analysis, it is the Bible itself, of course, 
which must settle the question of its inspiration and the 
extent of it, and to this we come in the consideration 
of the proof, but we may be allowed a final question. Can 
even God Himself give a thought to man without the 
words that clothe it? Are not the two inseparable, as 
much so ‘‘as a sum and its figures, or a tune and its 
notes?” Has any case been known in human history 


162 SELECTED ARTICLES 


where a healthy mind has been able to create ideas with- 
out expressing them to its own preception? In other 
words, as Dr. A. J. Gordon once observed: “To deny 
that the Holy Spirit speaks in Scripture is an intelligible 
proposition, but to admit that He speaks, it is impossible 
to know what He says except as we have His Words.” 


III. Proor or INSPIRATION 


1. The inspiration of the Bible is proven by the phil- 
osophy, or what may be called the nature of the case. 

The proposition may be stated thus: The Bible is 
the history of the redemption of the race, or from the 
side of the individual, a supernatural revelation of the 
will of God to men for their salvation. But it was given 
to certain men of one age to be conveyed in writing to 
other men in different ages. Now all men experience 
difficulty in giving faithful reflections of their thoughts 
to others because of sin, ignorance, defective memory 
and the inaccuracy always incident to the use of language. 

Therefore it may be easily deduced that if the reve- 
lation is to be communicated precisely as originally re- 
ceived, the same supernatural power is required in the 
one case as in the other. This has been sufficiently 
elaborated in the foregoing and need not be dwelt upon 
again. 

2. It may be proven by the history and character of 
the Bible, i.e., by all that has been assumed as to its 
authenticity and credibility. All that goes to prove these 
things goes to prove its inspiration. 

To borrow in part, the language of the Westminster 
Confession, “the heavenliness of its matter, the efficacy 
of its doctrine, the unity of its various parts, the majesty 
of its style and the scope and completeness of its de- 
sign’ all indicate the divinity of its origin. 

The more we think upon it the more we must be con- 
vinced that men unaided by the Spirit of God could 
neither have conceived, nor put together, nor preserved 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 163 


in its integrity that precious deposit known as the Sacred 
Oracles. 

3. But the strongest proof is the declarations of the 
Bible itself and the inferences to be drawn from them. 
Nor is this reasoning in a circle as some might think. 
In the case of a man as to whose veracity there is no 
doubt, no hesitancy is felt in accepting what he says 
about himself; and since the Bible is demonstrated to 
be true in its statements of fact by unassailable evidence, 
may we not accept its witness in its own behalf? 

Take the argument from Jesus Christ as an illus- 
tration. He was content to be tested by the prophecies 
that went before on Him, and the result of that ordeal 
was the establishment of His claims to be the Messiah 
beyond a peradventure. That complex system of 
prophecies, rendering collusion or counterfeit impossible, 
is the incontestable proof that He was what He claimed 
to be. But, of course, He in whose birth, and life, and 
death, and resurrection such marvelous prophecies met 
their fulfilment, became, from the hour in which His 
claims were established, a witness to the divine authority 
and infallible truth of the sacred records in which these 
prophecies are found.—(The New Apologetic, by Pro- 
fessor Robert Waits, D.D.) 

It is so with the Bible. The character of its contents, 
the unity of its parts, the fulfilment of its prophecies, the 
miracles wrought in its attestation, the effects it has ac- 
complished in the lives of nations and of men, all these 
go to show that it is divine, and if so, that it may be 
believed in what it says about itself. 


A. ARGUMENT FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT 


To begin with the Old Testament, (a) consider how 
the writers speak of the origin of their messages. Dr. 
James H. Brookes is authority for saying that the phrase, 
“Thus saith the Lord” or its equivalent is used by them 
two thousand times. Suppose we eliminate this phrase 
and its necessary context from the Old Testament in 


104 SELECTED VARDICEAS 


every instance, one wonders how much of the Old Testa- 
ment would remain. 

(b) Consider how the utterances of the Old Testa- 
ment writers are introduced into the New. Take Mat- 
thew 1:22 as an illustration, “Now all this was done 
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord 
through the prophet.” It was not the prophet who spake, 
but the Lord who spake through the prophet. 

(c) Consider how Christ and His apostles regard 
the Old Testament. Hecame “not to destroy but to ful- 
fil the law and the prophets.” Matt. 5:17. “The Scrip- 
ture cannot be broken.” John 10:35. He sometimes 
used single words as the bases of important doctrines, 
twice in Matthew 22, at verses 31, 32 and 42-5. The 
apostles do the same. See Galatians 3:16, Hebrews 
DS hod aad P2267. 

(d) Consider what the apostles directly teach upon 
the subject. Peter tells us that ““No prophecy ever came 
by the will of man, but men spake from God, being moved 
by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, R. V.). “Prophecy” 
here applies to the word written as is indicated in the 
preceding verse, and means not merely the foretelling of 
events, but the utterances of any word of God without 
reference as to time past, present or to come. As a mat- 
ter of fact, what Peter declares is that the will of man 
had nothing to do with any part of the Old Testament, 
but that the whole of it, from Genesis to Malachi, was 
inspired by God. 

Of course Paul says the same, in language even 
plainer, in 2 Timothy. 3:16, “All scripture is given by 
inspiration of God, and is profitable.” The phrase “in- 
spiration of God” means literally God-breathed. The 
whole of the Old Testament is God-breathed, for it is 
to that part of the Bible the language particularly refers 
since the New Testament as such was not then generally 
known. 

As this verse is given somewhat differently in the 
Revised Version we dwell upon it a moment longer. It 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 165 


there reads, “Every Scripture inspired of God is also 
profitable,’ and the caviller is disposed to say that, there- 
fore, some Scripture may be inspired and some may not 
be, and that the profitableness extends only to the former 
and not the latter. 

But aside from the fact that Paul would hardly be 
guilty of such a weak truism as that, it may be stated 
in reply first, that the King James rendering of the pas- 
sage is not only the more consistent Scripture, but the 
more consistent Greek. Several of the best Greek 
scholars of the period affirm this, including some of the 
revisers themselves who did not vote for the change. 
And secondly, even the revisers place it in the margin 
as of practically equal authority with their preferred 
translation, and to be chosen by the reader if desired. 
There are not a few devout Christians, however, who 
would be willing to retain the rendering of the Revised 
Version as being stronger than the King James, and who | 
would interpolate a word in applying it to make it mean, 
“Every Scripture (because) inspired of God is also profit- 
able.’ We believe that both Gaussen and Wordsworth 
take this view, two as staunch defenders of plenary in- 
spiration as could be named. 


B. ARGUMENT FoR THE NEW TESTAMENT 


We are sometimes reminded that, however strong 
and convincing the argument for the inspiration of the 
Old Testament, that for the New Testament is only indi- 
rect. ‘Not one of the evangelists tells us that he is in- 
spired,’ says a certain theological professor, “and not 
one writer of an epistle, except Paul.” 

We shall be prepared to dispute this statement a little 
further, but in the meantime let us reflect that the in- 
spiration of the Old Testament being assured as it is, why 
should similar evidence be required for the New? Who- 
ever is competent to speak as a Bible authority knows 
that the unity of the Old and New Testaments is the 
strongest demonstration of their common source. They 


166 SELECTED ARTICLES 


are seen to be not two books, but only two parts of one 
book. 

To take then the analogy of the Old Testament. The 
foregoing argument proves its inspiration as a whole, 
although there were long periods separating the dif- 
ferent writers, Moses and David let us say, or David 
and Daniel, the Pentateuch and the Psalms, or the 
Psalms and the Prophets. As long, or longer, than be- 
tween Malachi and Matthew, or Ezra and the Gospels. 
If then to carry conviction for the plenary inspiration of 
the Old Testament as a whole, it is not necessary to prove 
it for every book, why, to carry conviction for the plen- 
ary inspiration of the Bible as a whole is it necessary to 
do the same? , 

We quote here a paragraph or two from Dr. Na- 
thaniel West. He is referring to 2 Timothy 3:16, which 
he renders, “Every Scripture is inspired of God,” and 
adds: 


The distributive word “Every” is used not only to particu- 
larize each individual Scripture of the Canon that Timothy had 
studied from his youth, but also to include, along with the Old 
Testament the New Testament Scriptures extant in Paul’s day, 
and any others, such as those that John wrote after him. 

The Apostle Peter tells us that he was in possession, not 
merely of some of Paul’s Epistles, but “all his Epistles,” and 
places them, canonically, in the same rank with what he calls 
“the other Scriptures,” 7.e., of equal inspiration and authority 
with the “words spoken before by the Holy Prophets, and the 
commandment of the Lord and Savior, through the Apostles.” 
guPeter,'3 2!) 16, 

Paul teaches the same co-ordination of the Old and New 
Testaments. Having referred to the Old as a unit, in his phrase 
“Holy Scriptures,’ which the revisers translate “Sacred Writ- 
ings,” he proceeds to particularize. He tells Timothy that “every 
Scripture,” whether of Old or New Testament production, “is 
inspired of God.” Let it be in the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the 
Prophets, the Historical Books, let it be a chapter or a verse; 
let it be in the Gospels, the Acts, his own or Peter’s Epistles, 
or even John’s writings, yet to be, still each part of the Sacred 
Collection is God-given and because of that possesses divine 
authority as part of the Book of God. 


We read this from Dr. West twenty years ago, and 
rejected it as his dictum. We read it today, with deeper 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 167 


and fuller knowledge of the subject, and we believe it 
to be true. 

It is somewhat as follows that Dr. Gaussen in his 
exhaustive “Theopneustia” gives the argument for the 
inspiration of the New Testament. 

(a) The New Testament is the later, and for that 
reason the more important revelation of the two, and 
hence if the former were inspired, it certainly must be 
true of the latter. The opening verses of the first and 
second chapters of Hebrews plainly suggest this: “God, 
who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time 
past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last 
days spoken unto us by His Son... . Therefore we ought 
to give the more earnest heed to the things which we 
have heard.” 

And this inference is rendered still more conclusive 
by the circumstance that the New Testament sometimes 
explains, sometimes proves, and sometimes even repeals 
ordinances of the Old Testament. See Matthew 1:22, 
23, for an illustration of the first, Acts 13: 19-39 for the 
second and Galatians 5:6 for the third. Assuredly these 
things would not be true if the New Testament were not 
of equal, and in a certain sense, even greater authority 
than the Old. 

(b) The writers of the New Testament were of an 
equal or higher rank than those of the Old. That they 
were prophets is evident from such allusions as Romans 
16:25-7, and Ephesians 3:4, 5. But that they were 
more than prophets is indicated in the fact that wherever 
in the New Testament prophets and apostles are both 
- mentioned, the last-named is always mentioned first (see 
1 Cor. 12:28, Ephesians 2:20, Ephesians 4:11). It is 
also true that the writers of the New Testament had a 
higher mission than those of the Old, since they were 
sent forth by Christ as He had been sent forth by the 
Father (John 20:21). They were to go, not to a single 
nation only (as Israel), but into all the world (Matthew 
28:19). They received the keys of the kingdom of 


168 SELECTED ARTICLES 


heaven (Matthew 16:19). And they are to be pre- 
eminently rewarded is the regeneration (Matthew 19: 
28). Such considerations and comparisons as these are 
not to be overlooked in estimating the authority by which 
they wrote. 

(c) The writers of the New Testament were espe- 
cially qualified for their work, as we see in Matthew 
10:19, 20, Mark 13:11, Luke 12:2, John 14:26 and 
John 16:13, 14. These passages will be dwelt on more 
at length in a later division of our subject, but just now 
it may be noticed that in some of the instances, inspira- 
tion of the most absolute character was promised as to 
what they should speak—the inference being warranted 
that none the less would they be guided in what they 
wrote. Their spoken words were limited and temporary 
in their sphere, but their written utterances covered the 
whole range of revelation and were to last forever. If 
in the one case they were inspired, how much more in 
the other? 

(dq) The writers of the New Testament directly 
claim divine inspiration. See Acts 15: 23-9, where, espe- 
cially at verse 28, James is recorded as saying, “for it 
seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon 
you no greater burden than these necessary things.” 
Here it is affirmed very clearly that the Holy Ghost 1s 
the real writer of the letter in question and simply using 
the human instruments for His purpose. Add to this 1 
Corinthians 2:13, where Paul says: “Which things also 
we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teach- 
eth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spir- 
itual things with spiritual,’ or as the margin of the Re- 
vised Version puts it, “imparting spiritual things to 
spiritual men.” In 1 Thessalonians 2:13 the same writer 
says: “For this cause also thank we God without ceas- 
ing, because when ye received the word of God which 
ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of man, 
but as it is in truth the word of God.” In 2 Peter 3:2 
the apostle places his own words on a level with those 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 169 


of the prophets of the Old Testament, and in verses 15 
and 16 of the same chapter he does the same with the 
writings of Paul, classifying them “with the other Scrip- 
tures.” Finally, in Revelation 2:7, although it is the 
Apostle John who is writing, he is authorized to ex- 
claim: “He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit 
saith unto the churches,” and so on throughout the epistles 
to the seven churches. 


C. ARGUMENT FOR THE WorDS 


The evidence that the inspiration includes the form 
as well as the substance of the Holy Scriptures, the word 
as well as the thought, may be gather ed in this way. 

1. There were certaimly some occasions when the 
words were given to the human agents. Take the in- 
stance of Balaam (Numbers 22: 38, 23:12, 16). It 1s 
clear that this self-seecking prophet thought, 1.e., desired 
to speak differently from what he did, but was obliged 
to speak the word that God put in his mouth. There are 
two incontrovertible witnesses to this, one being Balaam 
himself and the other God. 

Take Saul (1 Samuel 10:10), or at a later time, his 
messengers (19:20-4). No one will claim that there 
was not an inspiration of the words here. And Caiaphas 
also (John 11: 49-52), of whom it is expressly said that 
when he prophesied that one man should die for the 
people, “this spake he not of himself.” Who believes 
that Caiaphas meant or really knew the significance of 
what he said? 

And how entirely this harmonizes with Christ’s 
promise to His disciples in Mathew 10:19, 20 and else- 
where. “When they deliver you up take no thought (be 
not anxious) how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be 
given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is 
not ye that speak but the Spirit of your Father which 
speaketh in you.” Mark is even more emphatic: “Neither 
do ye premeditate, but whatsoever shall be given you in 
that hour, that speak ye, for it is not ye that speak, but 
the Holy Ghost.” 


170 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Take the circumstance of the day of Pentecost (Acts 
2:4-11), when the disciples “began to speak with other 
tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Parthians, 
Medes, Elamites, the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judea, 
Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, 
in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, the strangers of 
Rome, Cretes and Arabians all testified ‘““we do hear them 
speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God!” Did 
not this inspiration include the words? Did it not in- 
deed exclude the thought? What clearer example could 
be desired? 

To the same purport consider Paul’s teachings in 1 
Corinthians 14 about the gift of tongues. He that speak- 
eth in an unknown tongue, in the Spirit speaketh mys- 
teries, but no man understandeth him, therefore, he is 
to pray that he may interpret. Under some circumstances, 
if no interpreter be present, he is to keep silence in the 
church and speak only to himself and to God. 

But better still, consider the utterance of 1 Peter 1: 10, 
11, where he speaks of them who prophesied of the grace 
that should come, as “searching what, or what manner 
of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did 
signify when He testified beforehand the sufferings of 
Christ and the glory that should follow, to whom it was 
revealed,” etc. 

Should we see a student who, having taken down the lecture 
of a profound philosopher, was now studying diligently to com- 
prehend the sense of the discourse which he had written, we 
should understand simply that he was a pupil and not a mas- 
ter; that he had nothing to do with originating either the 
thoughts or the words of the lecture, but was rather a disciple 
whose province it was to understand what he had transcribed, 
and so be able to communicate it to others. 

And who can deny that this is the exact picture of what we 
have in this passage from Peter? Here were inspired writers 
studying the meaning of what they themselves had written. With 
all possible allowance for the human peculiarities of the writers, 
they must have been reporters of what they heard, rather than 
formulators of that which they had been made to understand.— 
A. J. Gordon in “The Ministry of the Spirit.’ p. 173, 174. 

2. The Bible plainly teaches that inspiration extends 
to tts words. We spoke of Balaam as uttering that which 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 171 


God put in his mouth, but the same expression is used 
by God Himself with reference to His prophets. When 
Moses would excuse himself from service because he 
was not eloquent, He who made man’s mouth said, “Now 
therefore go, and [ will be with thy mouth. and teach 
thee what thou shalt say” (Exodus 4:10-12). And Dr. 
James H. Brookes’ comment is very pertinent. ‘God 
did not say I will be with thy mind, and teach thee what 
thou shalt think; but I will be with thy mouth and teach 
thee what thou shalt say. This explains why, forty 
years afterward, Moses said to Israel, ‘Ye shall not add 
unto the word I command you, neither shall ye diminish 
gueht trom it’ (Deut. 4:2.) Seven times Moses tells 
us that the tables of stone containing the commandments 
were the work of God, and the writing was the writing 
of God, graven upon the tables (Exodus 31:16). 

Passing from the Pentateuch to the poetical books 
we find David saying, “The Spirit of the Lord spake 
by me, and His word was in my tongue” (2 Samuel 
23:1, 2). He, too, does not say, God thought by me, 
but spake by me. 

Coming to the prophets, Jeremiah confesses that, like 
Moses, he recoiled from the mission on which he was 
sent and for the same reason. He was a child and could 
not speak. ‘Then the Lord put forth His hand and 
touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold 
I have put My word in thy mouth” (Jeremiah 1:6-9). 

All of which substantiates the declaration of Peter 
quoted earlier, that “no prophecy ever came by the will 
of man, but men spake from God, being moved by the 
Holy Spirit.” Surely, if the will of man had nothing 
to do with the prophecy, he could not have been at lib- 
erty in the selection of the words. 

So much for the Old Testament, but when we reach 
the New, we have the same unerring and verbal accuracy 
cuaranteed to the apostles by the Son of God, as we have 
seen. And we have the apostles making claim of it, as 
when Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:12, 13 distinguishes be- 


172 SELECTED "ARITICOES 


tween the “things” or the thoughts which God gave him 
and the words in which he expressed them, and insisting 
on the divinity of both; “Which things also we speak,” 
he says, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, 
but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” In Galatians.3: 16, 
following the example of his divine Master, he employs 
not merely a single word, but a single letter of a word 
as the basis of an argument for a great doctrine. The 
blessing of justification which Abraham received has be- 
come that of the believer in Jesus Christ. “Now to 
Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He 
saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And 
to thy seed, which is Christ.” 

The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews bases a 
similar argument on the word “all” in chapter 1:8, on 
the word Pianey in 1:11, and on the phrase “yet once 
more” in 12:26, 27. 

To recur to Paul’s argument in Galatians, Archdeacon 
Farrar in one of his writings denies that by any pos- 
sibility such a Hebraist as he, and such a master of 
Greek usage could have argued in this way. He says 
Paul must have known that the plural of the Hebrew 
and Greek terms for “seed” is never used by Hebrew 
or Greek writers to designate human offspring. It means, 
he says, various kinds of grain. 

His artlessness is amusing. We accept his estimate 
of Paul’s knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, says Profes- 
sor Watts, he was certainly a Hebrew of the Hebrews, 
and as to his Greek he could not only write it but speak 
it as we know, and quote what suited his purpose from 
the Greek poets. But on this supposition we feel justi- 
fied in asking Dr. Farrar whether a lexicographer in 
searching Greek authors for the meanings they attached 
to spérmata, the Greek for “seeds,” would not be in- 
clined to add “human offspring” on so good an authority 
as Paul? 

Nor indeed would they be limited to his authority, 
since Sophocles uses it in the same way, and Aeschylus. 





FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 173 


“TI was driven away from my country by my own off- 
spring’ (spéermata)—literally by my own seeds, is what 
the former makes one of his characters say. 

Dr. Farrar’s rendering of spérmata in Galatians 3:6 
on the other hand would make nonsense if not sacrilege. 
“He saith not unto various kinds of grain as of many, 
but as of one, and to thy grain, which is Christ.” 

Granting then, what we thank no man for granting, that 
spéermata means human offspring, it is evident that despite all 
opinions to the contrary, this passage sustains the teaching of an 
inspiration of Holy Writ extending to its very words. 

3. But the most unique argument for the inspiration 
of the words of Scripture is the relation which Jesus 
Christ bears to them. In the first place, He Himself was 
inspired as to His words. In the earliest reference to His 
prophetic office (Deut. 18:18), Jehovah says, “I will 
put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak... 
all that I shall command Him.” A limitation on His 
utterance which Jesus everywhere recognizes. “As My 
Father hath taught Me, I speak these things;”’ “the 
Father which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment 
what I should say, and what I should speak;” “what- 
soever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto 
Me, so I speak;” “I have given unto them the words 
which Thou gavest Me;” “the words that I speak unto 
you, they are spirit and they are life.’ (John 6: 63; 8: 26, 
28, 40; 12: 49, 50.) 

The thought is still more impressive as we read a 
the relation of the Holy Spirit to the God-man. “The 
Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because He hath anointed 
Me to preach the gospel to the poor;” “He through the 
Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles ;” 
“the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto 
Him;” “these things saith He that holdeth the seven 
stars in His right hand;” “He that hath an ear let him 
hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Luke 
Ae lewActs 12. Revue seceuleoll).~ Li the incarnate 
Word needed the unction of the Holy Ghost to give to 


174 SELECTED ARTICLES 


men the revelation He received from the Father in 
Whose bosom He dwells; and if the agency of the same 
Spirit extended to the words He spake in preaching the 
gospel to the meek or dictating an epistle, how much 
more must these things be so in the case of ordinary 
men when engaged in the same service? With what 
show of reason can one contend that any Old or New 
Testament writer stood, so far as his words were con- 
cerned, in need of no such agency.”—The New Apolo- 
getic. p. 67, OS. 

In the second place He used the Scriptures as though 
they were inspired as to their words. In Matthew 22: 31, 
32, He substantiates the doctrine of the resurrection 
against the skepticism of the Sadducees by emphasizing 
the present tense of the verb “to be,” 2.e., the word “am” 
in the language of Jehovah to Moses at the burning 
bush. In verses 42-5 of the same chapter He does the 
same for His own Deity by alluding to the second use 
of the word “Lord” in Psalm CX. “The LORD said 
unto my Lord... If David then call him Lord, how is 
he his son?’ In John 10: 34-6, He vindicates Himself 
from the charge of blasphemy by saying, “Is it not writ- 
ten in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If He called them 
gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scrip- 
ture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father 
hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphem- 
est; because I said, I am the Son of God?” 

We have already seen Him (in Matthew 4) over- 
coming the tempter in the wilderness by three quotations 
from Deuteronomy without note or comment except, “Jt 
is written.” Referring to which Adolphe Monod says, 


I know of nothing in the whole history of humanity, nor 
even in the field of divine revelation, that proves more clearly 
than this the inspiration of the Scriptures. What! Jesus Christ, 
the Lord of heaven and earth, calling to His aid in that solemn 
moment, Moses His servant? He Who speaks from heaven 
fortifying Himself against the temptations of hell by the word 
of him who spake from earth? How can we explain that spir- 
itual mystery, that wonderful reversing of the order of things, 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 175 


if for Jesus the words of Moses were not the words of God 
rather than those of men? How shall we explain it if Jesus 
were not fully aware that holy men of God spake as they were 
moved by the Holy Ghost? 

I do not forget the objections which have been raised against 
the inspiration of the Scriptures, nor the real obscurity with 
which that inspiration is surrounded; if they sometimes trouble 
your hearts, they have troubled mine also. But at such times, 
in order to revive my faith, I have only to glance at Jesus 
glorifying the Scriptures in the wilderness and I have seen 
that for all who rely upon Him, the most embarrassing of prob- 
lems is transformed into a historical fact, palpable and clear. 
Jesus no doubt was aware of the difficulties connected with the 
inspiration of the Scriptures, but did this prevent Him from 
appealing to their testimony with unreserved confidence? Let that 
which was sufficient for Him suffice for you. Fear not. that the 
rock which sustained the Lord in the hour of His temptation and 
distress will give way because you lean too heavily upon it. 


In the third place, Christ teaches that the Scriptures 
are inspired as to their words. In the Sermon on the 
Mount He said, “Think not that I am come to destroy 
the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but 
to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and 
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass 
from the law, till all be fulfilled.” 

Here is testimony confirmed by an oath, for “verily” 
on the lips of the Son of Man carries such force. He 
affirms the indestructibility of the law, not its substance 
merely but its form, not the thought but the word. 

“One jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” 
The “jot” means the yod, the smallest letter in the He- 
brew alphabet, while the “‘tittle’ means the horn, a short 
projection in certain letters extending the base line be- 
yond the upright one which rests upon it. A reader un- 
accustomed to the Hebrew needs a strong eye to see the 
tittle, but Christ guarantees that as a part of the sacred 
text neither the tittle nor the yod shall perish. 

The elder Lightfoot, the Hebraist and rabbinical 
scholar of the Westminster Assembly time, has called at- 
tention to an interesting story of a certain letter yod 
found in the text of Deut. 32:18. It is in the word 


176 SELECTED: ARTICLES 


teshi, to forsake, translated in the King James as “un- 
mindful.” Originally it seems to have been written 
smaller even than usual, 2.e., undersized, and yet not- 
withstanding the almost infinite number of times in which 
copies have been made, that little yod stands there today 
just as it ever did. Lightfoot spoke of it in the middle 
of the seventeenth century, and although two more cen- 
turies and a half have passed since then with all their 
additional copies of the book, yet it still retains its place 
in the sacred text. Its diminutive size is referred to 
in the margin, “but no hand has dared to add a hair’s 
breadth to its length,’ so that we can still employ his 
words, and say that it is likely to remain there forever. 

The same scholar speaks of the effect a slight change 
in the form of a Hebrew letter might produce in the. 
substance of the thought for which it stands. He takes 
as an example two words, “Chalal’ and “Halal,” which 
differ from each other simply in their first radicals. 
The “Ch” in Hebrew is expressed by one letter the same 
as “H,” the only distinction being a slight break or open- 
ing in the left limb of the latter. It seems too trifling 
to notice, but let that line be broken where it should be 
continuous, and “Thou shalt not profane the Name of 
thy God” in Leviticus 18:21, becomes “Thou shalt not 
praise the Name of thy God.” Through that aperture, 
however small, the entire thought of the divine mind 
oozes out, so to speak, and becomes quite antagonistic to 
what was designed. 

This shows how truly the thought and the word ex- 
pressing it are bound together, and that whatever affects 
the one imperils the other. As another says, “The bottles 
are not the wine, but if the bottles perish, the wine is 
sure to be spilled.” It may seem like narrow-minded- 
ness to contend for this, and an evidence of enlightenment 
or liberal scholarship to treat it with indifference, but we 
should be prepared to take our stand with Jesus Christ 
in the premises, and if necessary, go outside the camp 
bearing our reproach. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 177 


IV. DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS 


That there are difficulties in the way of accepting a 
view of inspiration like this goes without saying. But 
to the finite mind there must always be difficulties con- 
nected with a revelation from the Infinite, and it cannot 
be otherwise. This has been mentioned before. Men of 
faith, and it is such we are addressing, and not men 
of the world, do not wait to understand ox resolve all 
the difficulties associated with other mysteries of the 
Bible before accepting them as divine, and why should 
they do so in this case? 

Moreover, Archbishop Whately’s dictum is generally 
accepted, that we are not obliged to clear away every 
difficulty about a doctrine in order to believe it, always 
provided that the facts on which it rests are true. And 
particularly is this the case where the rejection of such 
a doctrine involves greater difficulties than its belief, as 
it does here. 

For if this view of inspiration be rejected, what have 
its opponents to give in its place? Do they realize that 
any objections to it are slight in comparison with those 
to any other view that can be named? And do they 
realize that this is true because this view has the im- 
measurable advantage of agreeing with the plain declar- 
ations of Scripture on the subject? In other words, as 
Dr. Burrell says, those who assert the inerrancy of the 
Scripture autographs do so on the authority of God Him- 
self, and to deny it is of a piece with the denial that 
they teach the forgiveness of sins or the resurrection 
from the dead. No amount of exegetical turning and 
twisting can explain away the assertions already quoted 
in these pages, to say nothing of the constant under- 
tone of evidence we find in the Bible everywhere to 
their truth. 

And speaking of this further, are we not justified in 
requiring of the objector two things? First, on any 
fair basis of scientific investigation, is he not obliged to 


178 SELECTED MARTICLES 


dispose of the evidence here presented before he im- 
pugns the doctrine it substantiates? And second, after 
having disposed of it, is he not equally obligated to pre- 
sent the Scriptural proof of whatever other view of in- 
spiration he would have us accept? Has he ever done 
this, and if not, are we not further justified in saying 
that it cannot be done? But let us consider some of 
the difficulties. 

1. There are the so-called discrepancies or contra- 
dictions between certain statements of the Bible and the 
facts of history or natural science. The best way to meet 
these is to treat them separately as they are presented, 
but when you ask for them you are not infrequently met 
with silence. They are hard to produce, and when pro- 
duced, who is able to say that they belong to the original 
parchments? As we are not contending for an inerrant 
translation, does not the burden of proof rest with the 
objector? 

But some of these “discrepancies” are easily explained. 
They do not exist between statements of the Bible and 
facts of science, but between erroneous interpretations 
of the Bible and immature conclusions of science. The 
old story of Galileo is in point, who did not contradict 
the Bible in affirming that the earth moves round the 
sun but only the false theological assumptions about it. 
In this way advancing light has removed many of these 
discrepancies, and it is fair to presume with Dr. Charles 
Hodge that further light would remove all. 

2. There are the differences in the narratives them- 
selves. In the first place, the New Testament writers 
sometimes change important words in quoting from the 
Old Testament, which it is assumed could not be the 
case if in both instances the writers were inspired. But 
it is forgotten that in the Scriptures we are dealing not 
so much with different human authors as with one Di- 
vine Author. It is a principle in ordinary literature 
that an author may quote himself as he pleases, and give 
a different turn to an expression here and there as a 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 179 


changed condition of affairs renders it necessary or de- 
sirable. Shall we deny this privilege to the Holy Spirit? 
May we not find, indeed, that some of these supposed 
misquotations show such progress of truth, such evident 
application of the teaching of an earlier dispensation to 
the circumstances of a later one, as to afford a confir- 
mation of their divine origin rather than an argument 
against it? 

We offered illustrations of this earlier, but to those 
would now add Isaiah 59:20 quoted in Romans 11: 26, 
and Amos 9:11 quoted in Act 15:16. And to any de- 
siring to further examine the subject we would recom- 
mend the valuable work of Professor Franklin Johnson, 
of Chicago University, entitled “The Quotations in the 
New Testament from the Old.” 

Another class of differences, however, is where the 
same event is sometimes given differently by different 
writers. Take that most-frequently used by the ob- 
jectors, the inscription on the cross, recorded by all the 
evangelists and yet differently by each. How can such 
records be inspired, it is asked. 

It is to be remembered in reply, that the inscription 
was written in three languages calling for a different 
arrangement of the words in each case, and that one 
evangelist may have translated the Hebrew, and an- 
other the Latin, while a third recorded the Greek. It 
is not said that any one gave the full inscription, nor 
can we affirm that there was any obligation upon them 
to do so. Moreover, no one contradicts any other, and 
no one says what is untrue. 

Recalling what was said about our having to deal 
not with different human authors but with one Divine 
Author, may not the Holy Spirit here have chosen to 
emphasize some one particular fact, or phase of a fact 
of the inscription for a specific and important end? 
Examine the records to determine what this fact may 
have been. Observe that whatever else is omitted, all 
the narratives record the momentous circumstances that 


180 SELECTED ARTICLES 


the Sufferer on the cross was THE KING OF THE 
JEWS. 

Could there have been a cause for this? What was 
the charge preferred against Jesus by His accusers? 
Was He not rejected and crucified because He said He 
was the King of the Jews? Was not this the central 
idea Pilate was providentially guided to express in the 
inscription? And if so, was it not that to which the 
evangelists should bear witness? And should not that 
witness have been borne in a way to dispel the thought 
of collusion in the premises? And did not this involve 
a variety of narrative which should at the same time 
be in harmony with truth and fact? And do we not 
have this very thing in the four gospels? 

These accounts supplement, but do not contradict each 
other. We place them before the eye in the order in 
which they are recorded. 


This is Jesus THE KING OF THE JEWS 
THE KING OF THE JEWS 
This is THE KING OF THE JEWS 


Jesus of Nazareth THE KING OF THE JEWS 


The entire inscription evidently was “This is Jesus 
of Nazareth the King of the Jews,’ but we submit that 
the foregoing presents a reasonable argument for the 
differences in the records. 

3. There is the variety in style. Some think that if 
all the writers were alike inspired and the inspiration 
extended to their words, they must all possess the same 
style—as if the Holy Spirit had but one style! 

Literary style is a method of selecting words and put- 
ting sentences together which stamps an author’s work 
with the influence of his habits, his condition in society, 
his education, his reasoning, his experience, his imagina- 
tion and his genius. These give his mental and moral 
physiognomy and make up his style. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 181 


But is not God free to act with or without these 
fixed laws? There are no circumstances which tinge 
His views or reasonings, and He has no idiosyncrasies 
of speech, and no mother tongue through which He ex- 
presses His character, or leaves the finger mark of genius 
upon His literary fabrics. 

It is a great fallacy then, as Dr. Thomas Armitage 
once said, to suppose that uniformity of verbal style 
must have marked God’s authorship in the Bible, had 
He selected its words. As the author of all styles, rather 
does He use them all at His pleasure. He bestows all 
the powers of mental individuality upon His instruments 
for using the Scriptures, and then uses their powers as 
He will to express His mind by them. 

Indeed, the variety of style is a necessary proof of 
the freedom of the human writers, and it is this which 
among other things convinces us that, however con- 
trolled by the Holy Spirit, they were not mere machines 
in what they wrote. 

Consider God’s method in nature. In any department 
of vegetable life there may be but one genus, while its 
members are classified into a thousand species. From the 
bulbous root come the tulip, the hyacinth, the crocus, 
and the lily in every shape and shade, without any cause 
either of natural chemistry or culture. It is exclusively 
attributable to the variety of styles which the mind of 
God devises. And so in the sacred writings. His mind 
is seen in the infinite variety of expression which dictates 
the wording of every book. To quote Armitage again, 
“T cannot tell how the Holy Spirit suggested the words 
to the writers any more than some other man can tell 
how He suggested the thoughts to them. But if diversity 
of expression proves that He did not choose the words, 
the diversity of ideas proves that He did not dictate 
the thoughts, for the one is as varied as the other.” 

William Cullen Bryant was a newspaper man but a 
poet; Edmund Clarence Stedman was a Wall Street 
broker and also a poet. What a difference in style there 


182 SELECTED ARTICLES 


was between their editorials and commercial letters on 
the one hand, and their poetry on the other! Is God 
more limited than a man? 

4. There are certain declarations of Scripture itself. 
Does not Paul say in one or two places, “I speak as a 
man,’ or “After the manner of man?” Assuredly, but 
is he not using the arguments common among men for 
the sake of elucidating a point? And may he not as 
truly be led of the Spirit to do that, and to record it, as 
to do or say anything else? Of course, what he quotes 
from men is not of the same essential value as what he 
receives directly from God, but the record of the quota- 
tion is as truly inspired. 

There are two or three other utterances of his of 
this character in the 7th chapter of 1 Corinthians, where 
he is treating of marriage. At verse 6 he says, “I speak 
this by permission, not of commandment,” and what he 
means has no reference to the source of his message 
but the subject of it. In contradiction to the false teach- 
ing of some, he says Christians are permitted to marry, 
but not commanded to do so. At verse 10 he says, “Unto 
the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,” while 
at verse 12 there follows, “but to the rest speak I, not the 
Lord.” Does he declare himself inspired in the first in- 
stance, and not in the second? By no means, but in the 
first he is alluding to what the Lord spake on the sub- 
ject while here in the flesh, and in the second to what he, 
Paul, is adding thereto on the authority of the Holy 
Spirit speaking through him. In other words, putting 
his own utterances on equality with those of our Lord, 
he simply confirms their inspiration. 

At verse 40 he uses a puzzling expression, “I think 
also that I have the Spirit of God.’ As we are contend- 
ing only for an inspired record, it would seem easy to 
say that here he records a doubt as to whether he was in- 
spired, and hence everywhere else in the absence of such 
record of doubt the inspiration is to be assumed. But 
this would be begging the question, and we prefer the 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 183 


solution of others that the answer is found in the con- 
dition of the Corinthian church at that time. His enemies 
had sought to counteract his teachings, claiming that they 
had the Spirit of God. Referring to the claim, he says 
with justifiable irony, “I think also that I have the Spirit 
of God” (R.V.). “I think” in the mouth of one having 
apostolic authority, says Professor Watts, may be taken 
as carrying the strongest assertion of the judgment in 
question. The passage is something akin to another in 
the same epistle at the 14th chapter, verse 37, where he 
says, “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or 
spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things [ write unto 
you are the commandments of the Lord.” 

Time forbids further amplification on the difficulties 
and objections nor is it necessary, since there is not one 
that has not been met satisfactorily to the man of God 
and the child of faith again and again. 

But there is an obstacle to which we would call at- 
tention before concluding—not a difficulty or objection, 
but a real obstacle, especially to the young and insuf- 
ficiently instructed. It is the illusion that this view of 
inspiration is held only by the unlearned. An illusion 
growing out of still another as to who constitute the 
learned. 

There is a popular impression that in the sphere of 
theology and religion these latter are limited for the most 
part to the higher critics and their relatives, and the 
more rationalistic and iconoclastic the critic the more 
learned he is esteemed to be. But the fallacy of this is 
seen in that the qualities which make for a philologist, 
an expert in human languages, or which give one a wide 
acquaintance with literature of any kind, in other words 
the qualities of the higher critic, depend more on mem- 
ory than judgment, and do not give the slightest guaran- 
tee that their possessors can draw a sound conclusion 
from what they know. 

As the author of “Faith and Inspiration” puts it, the 
work of such a scholar is often like that of a quarryman 


184 SELECTED ARTICLES 


to an architect. Its entire achievement, though im- 
mensely valuable in its place, is just a mass of raw 
and formless material until a mind gifted in a different 
direction, and possessing the necessary taste and balance 
shall reduce or put it into shape for use. The perplex- 
ities of astronomers touching Halley’s comet is in point. 
They knew facts that common folks did not know, but 
when they came to generalize upon them, the man on the 
street knew that he should have looked in the west for 
the phenomenon when they bade him look in the east. 

Much is said for example about an acquaintance with 
Hebrew and Greek, and no sensible man will underrate 
them for the theologian or the Bible scholar, but they 
are entirely unnecessary to an understanding of the doc- 
trine of inspiration or any other doctrine of Holy Writ. 
The intelligent reader of the Bible in the English tongue, 
especially when illuminated by the Holy Spirit, is abun- 
dantly able to decide upon these questions for himself. 
He cannot determine how the Holy Spirit eperated on 
the minds of the sacred penmen because that is not re- 
vealed, but he can determine on the results secured be- 
cause that 7s revealed. He can determine whether the 
inspiration covers all the books, and whether it includes 
not only the substance but the form, not only the thoughts 
but the words. 

We have spoken of scholars and of the learned, let 
us come to names. We suppose Dr. Sanday, of Oxford, 
is a scholar, and the Archbishop of Durham, and Dean 
Burgon, and Professor Orr, of Glasgow, and Principal 
Forsyth, of Hackney College, and Sir Robert Anderson, 
and Dr. Kuyper, of Holland, and President Patton of 
Princeton, and Howard Osgood of the Old Testament 
Revision Committee and Matthew B. Riddle of the New, 
and G. Frederick Wright and Albert T. Clay, the archae- 
ologists, and Presidents Moorehead and Mullins, and C. I. 
Scofield, and Luther T. Townsend, for twenty-five years 
professor in the Theological School of Boston Univer- 
sity, and Arthur T. Pierson of the Missionary Review 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 185 


of the World, and a host of other living witnesses—Epis- 
copalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, 
Lutherans, Methodists, Reformed Dutch. 

We had thought John Calvin a scholar, and the dis- 
tinguished Bengel, and Canon Faussett, and Tregelles, 
and Auberlen, and Van Oosterzee, and Charles Hodge 
and Henry B. Smith, and so many more that it were 
foolishness to recall them. These men may not stand 
for every statement in these pages, they might not care 
to be quoted as holding technically the verbal theory of 
inspiration for reasons already named, but they will af- 
firm the heart of the contention and testify to their belief 
in an inspiration of the Sacred Oracles which includes 
the words. 

Once when the writer was challenged by the editor 
of a secular daily to name a single living scholar who 
thus believed, he presented that of a chancellor of a great 
university, and was told that he was not the kind of 
scholar that was meant! The kind of scholar not in- 
frequently meant by such opposers is the one who is 
seeking to destroy faith in the Bible as the Word of God, 
and to substitute in its place a Bible of his own making. 

The Outlook had an editorial recently, entitled 
“Whom Shall We Believe?’ in which the writer reaf- 
firmed the platitudes that living is a vital much more 
than an intellectual process, and that truth of the deeper 
kind is distilled out of experience rather than logical 
processes. This is the reason he said why many things 
are hidden from the so-called wise, who follow formal 
methods of exact observation, and are revealed to babes 
and sucklings who know nothing of these methods, but 
are deep in the process of living. No spectator ever yet 
understood a great contemporary human movement into 
which he did not enter. 

Does this explain why the cloistered scholar is unable 
to accept the supernatural inspiration of the Scriptures 
while the men on the firing line of the Lord’s army be- 
lieve in it even to the very words? Does it explain the 


186 SELECTED ARTICLES 


faith of our missionaries in foreign lands? Is this what 
led J. Hudson Taylor to Inland China, and Dr. Guin- 
ness to establish the work upon the Congo, and George 
Mueller and William Quarrier to support the orphans at 
Bristol and the Bridge of Weirs? Is this—the belief in 
the plenary inspiration of the Bible—the secret of the 
evangelistic power of D. L. Moody, and Chapman, and 
Torrey, and Gipsy Smith, and practically every evan- 
gelist in the field, for to the extent of our acquaintance 
there are none of these who doubt it? Does this tell 
why “the best sellers*on the market,’ at least among 
Christian people, have been the devotional and expository 
books of Andrew Murray, and Miller and Meyer, and 
writers of that stamp? Is this why the plain people have 
loved to listen to preachers like Spurgeon, and McLaren, 
and Campbell Morgan, and Len Broughton and A. C. 
Dixon and have passed by men of the other kind? It 
is, in a word, safe to challenge the whole Christian world 
for the name of a man who stands out as a winner of 
souls who does not believe in the inspiration of the Bible 
as it has been sought to be explained in these pages. 
But we conclude with a kind of concrete testimony— 
that of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church 
of America, and of a date as recent as 1893. The writer 
is not a Presbyterian, and, therefore, with the better grace 
can ask his readers to consider the character and the in- 
tellect represented in such an assembly. Here are some 
of our greatest merchants, our greatest jurists, our great- 
est educators, our greatest statesmen, as well as our 
greatest missionaries, evangelists and theologians. There 
may be seen as able and august a gathering of representa- 
tives of Christianity in other places and on other occa- 
sions, but few that can surpass it. For sobriety of 
thought, for depth as well as breadth of learning, for 
wealth of spiritual experience, for honesty of utterance, 
and virility of conviction, the General Assembly of the 
Presbyterian Church in America must command attention 
and respect throughout the world. And this is what it 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 187 


said on the subject we are now considering at its gather- 
ing in the city of Washington, the capital of the nation, 
at the date named: 

THE BIBLE AS WE NOW HAVE IT, IN ITS. VARI- 
OUS TRANSLATIONS AND REVISIONS, WHEN FREED 
FROM ALL ERRORS AND MISTAKES OF TRANSLA- 
Oko REO EY lobo nANDeORUNT ERS, v¢ls9 0 LPL eaWV RY 


WORD.,OF )GOD, “-AND), CONSEQUENTLY: “WHOLLY 
WITHOUT ERROR. 


A CONSERVATIVE PRESBYTERIAN’S UNDER- 
Se NDING OPENER ROA IN Gy 


... It has been said... that our Standards have no 
declaration as to the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Cer- 
tainly not in the narrow and foolish sense in which some 
of the so-called liberals are interpreting that word, “in- 
erancy.” <A study of the three Assemblies which made 
the declaration as to the inerrancy of the Scriptures 
shows that this declaration was made in view of the de- 
nial of, or the refusal to affirm, certain great New Testa- 
ment facts such as the virgin birth of our Lord, His 
bodily resurrection, and that He worked miracles. I feel 
sure that I am speaking not only for myself, but for the 
great number in our church who are now protesting 
against non-evangelical teachings in our pulpits, when I 
say that by the inerrancy of the Scriptures it is not meant 
that there can be no discrepancy between numerals in 
Kings or Chronicles, or that (although the subject is still 
discussed by scholars) in the passage where reference is 
made in Matthew’s gospel to what was done with the 
thirty pieces of silver, the supposed fulfilled prophecy 
could not have been referred to Jeremiah instead of 
Zechariah, where it seems properly to belong. That is 
not what we mean, and I am sure you must be aware 
of it, when we speak of the inerrancy of the Scriptures. 
We mean, for example, that when the gospels tell us that 


1By Rev. Clarence E. Macartney, in a letter to Henry van Dyke. 
Presbyterian. 93. No. 51: 7. December 20, 1923. 


188 SELECTED, ARTICLES * 


Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born 
of the Virgin Mary, that He died a sin-offering, that He 
rose from the grave with the marks of His passion in His 
body, and that He walked on the sea and stilled the tem- 
pest, and fed a multitude of people with a few loaves 
and fishes, they are telling us what is fact. 


B. IN DEFENSE OF THE NEW VIEW 


The Bible is inspired as it is inspired, and not as we may 
think it ought to be inspired—Wulliam Newton. Clarke.* 


_ A man has no idea how great a man Paul was, or how great 
his teaching, as long as he feels obliged to agree with him.— 
Wiliam Newton Clarke, quoting from a friend. 


FUNDAMENTALISM, MODERNISM AND THE 
BIBLE 


In discussing the nature of the Bible as conceived by 
fundamentalism and modernism, it is apparent that a 
large body of belief regarding this collection of writings 
is held in common. Both hold that the Bible is inspired 
of God, and is in a unique sense the word of God; both 
hold that it is the record of a disclosure of the divine na- 
ture and purpose in history; both believe that it possesses 
moral and religious authority excelling by broad diam- 
eters that quality as exhibited in any other documents; 
and both believe that rightly understood it is an adequate 
standard of appeal in matters of the spiritual life. It 
would seem that agreement on these elemental aspects 
of the Scripture, however widely people may vary in pre- 
cise definition, would afford a common ground of faith 
and conduct. Yet such seems to be far from the case. 
As contrasted with the confessors of other religions, 
such as Buddhism and Islam, the difference between the 
two groups is not so obvious. But when brought into 
contact in the attempt to make clear their respective opin- 
ions, the chasm is evidently too wide and deep to be 
crossed. There is no virtue in attempting to obscure this 
fact. 

1 Sixty Years with the Bible. p. 133. 


2 Sixty Years with the Bible. p. 92. 
® Christian Century. 41: 424-5. April 3, 1924. 


190 SELECTED “ARTICLES 


Fundamentalists regard the Bible as the product of 
the divine mind revealed through human instruments 
much as a man of business dictates his correspondence to 
secretaries and stenographers. They say that if it is to 
be accepted as the word of God, then it is reasonable to 
infer that the method of its communication has been such 
as to leave unimpaired its validity as an accurate and 
authoritative record. The authors of the various books 
coubtless exercised a limited amount of freedom in their 
approach to the themes of which they spoke. But that 
freedom was wholly eliminated in relation to the subject 
inatter and even the verbal form of their messages. If 
the Bible cannot be trusted to provide its readers with the 
very thoughts and words of the Holy Spirit, then it is 
worthless as a guide in religion. Indeed it is the claim 
made by the book itself that it is the product of holy men 
who spoke as they were moved by the Spirit. All Scrip- 
ture is by inspiration of God. If there are minor varia- 
tions in text and narrative, such as those pointed out by 
textual and literary students, these are the result of hu- 
man fallibility in the transmission of an originally per- 
fect record. And the fact that the meanings of nu- 
merous passages in the Bible are made to depend upon 
the precise term that is employed, proves that the inspira- 
tion of the Scriptures applies to their verbal form, and 
not merely to their general tone and direction. 

On the other hand, the Modernist starts with no pre- 
conception as to what the Bible ought to be, but is inter- 
ested to discover what it actually reveals regarding its 
origin and nature. He perceives that the Protestant re- 
action from the papal dogma of an infallible church re- 
sulted in the opposing doctrine of an infallible Bible, and 
that neither of these claims rests upon valid grounds. 
The Bible is not a supernaturally produced or safe- 
guarded collection of documents, but the honest and rev- 
erent work of men living at various periods in the his- 
tory of the Hebrew and Jewish people, over an interval 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM IgI 


of more than a thousand years ; that it is the record of the 
most notable chapters in the history of religion; that its 
contents include legislation, sermons and sermonic use of 
narratives dealing with former and current events, reflec- 
tions upon the most outstanding religious problems, 
hymns of the faith, apocalyptic hopes, and most im- 
portant of all, a body of writings dealing with the life and 
message of Jesus Christ and the growth of the Christian 
society in its earliest years. These writings lay no claim 
to exactness in matters of history, chronology or science ; 
yet their record is so adequate regarding the Hebrew 
faith as disclosed in the volumes of the Old Testament, 
and the nature of Jesus and the movement he inspired in 
history as described in the New, that interest in the mere 
niceties of narrative, the accuracies of quotation and the 
details of ritual is thrown into lesser significance by the 
tremendous sweep and impulse of these movements that 
make clear the divine activity in human life. 

It is a commonplace to say that the Bible is inspired. 
To be sure, that expression is nowhere used by the writ- 
ers of the Scriptures to characterize its contents. Paul 
used it not only in reference to the Old Testament, but 
evidently of a much larger collection of holy writings 
than we now admit into the canon. But inspiration is a 
word applied to so many other products of human genius 
that it is only a weak and pallid term to set forth the rich 
complex of values that appear in the Bible. In the sense 
in which it can be applied to the Biblical writings at all it 
does not refer primarily to any beauties or urgencies that 
inhere in texts and documents. It is rather a certain 
moral passion in the lives of such forceful personalities 
as are portrayed in the Bible and had part in its produc- 
tion, men like the prophets who were moved, urged on, 
pushed out, by their deep concern to assist in the realiza- 
tion of the divine purpose for their age; or who like the 
apostles had caught according to their varying capacity 
something of the social, ethical and spiritual contagion of 


192 SELECTED) ARTICLES 


the life of Jesus, and could not rest until in turn they had 
exhausted their energies in transmitting it to other men. 
Some part of this disclosure of the divine life and pro- 
gram they incarnated in their own characters; some 
smaller part they uttered in their preaching; and a por- 
tion, less than either, they were able to record in those 
inasterful writings which are the most precious of the 
religious inheritances of the race. The Scriptures are as 
various as their writers, and it is that same variety of 
inaterial, as the productions of men filled with a holy pas- 
sion to make known the good news of the divine purpose 
in the world, that makes them the vital, compelling, 
authoritative messages they are. There is no term by 
which the unique character of the Bible can be defined, 
ieast of all the much used and misused term inspiration. 
The Bible is just the sum total of the rich and varied ele- 
ments which appear in it and in no other body of litera- 
ture. Therein lies its distinction and its finality among 
the books of religion. 

Both Fundamentalists and Modernists believe in a 
certain element of progress in the revelation which the 
Bible makes of the character and purposes of God. Bui 
this element has very different values as assessed by the 
two groups. Most Fundamentalists would concede that 
there is movement in the story of religion as portrayed in 
the Scriptures. Even the covenant theologians of the 
eighteenth century emphasized that fact, and defined the 
pre-Mosaic period as the starlight age, the classical epoch 
of Hebrew history as the moonlight age, and the Christ- 
ian dispensation as the sunlight age. God was repre- 
sented as releasing from time to time some fresh incre- 
ment of an eternal revelation already complete from the 
beginning. In so far as the Fundamentalist is willing to 
depart in the least from his normal attitude of belief in a 
level Bible, all parts of which are of equal validity, it is to 
adopt some principle of segmentation which assigns to 
the dispensations fixed and stratified forms of religious 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 193 


teaching just as fossil remains are assumed to have been 
placed in their appropriate settings by creative act at the 
beginning. 

The Modernist on the other hand believes that the 
self-revelation of God, like creation, is a continuous pro- 
cess. It is the nature of a father to make known his char- 
acter and purposes in all his relations with his children. 
All human history is the record of the divine effort at self- 
interpretation to the race. No one people has been the 
sole beneficiary of this process, for God has never left 
Himself without witness among any people. But some 
of His children have understood Him better than others, 
and to them He has been able to make fuller disclosure 
than to the rest. These disclosures have not been arbi- 
trary and partial acts of revelation to special and favored 
groups. But those who best apprehended the meaning 
of the divine work in creation, in human experience and 
in the disciplines of the years, were able to speak a fuller 
message than the rest. Among the races some have 
shown marked aptitudes for particular tasks. The unique 
quality of some of the Hebrew people was their per- 
ception of moral and religious values as made clear to 
them in their relations with God. These values were best 
interpreted by the prophets of Israel, and were brought 
to their supreme expression in the life and ministry of 
Jesus. The Bible is therefore the record of these expand- 
ing ideals as they were given utterance and illustration 
from age to age in a unique history. The beginnings were 
lowly and crude. The early prophets did not hesitate to 
use brute force to emphasize their mandates, as when Eli- 
jah put to death the priests of Baal at the Kishon, or 
Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord. But grad- | 
ually they learned the lesson that the best instrument of 
the preacher is a voice and not a sword. Those of one 
generation corrected the mistakes of their earlier breth- 
ren, as when Hosea denounced the bloody reform of 
Jehu, which had received the approbation of Elisha and 


104 SELECTED ARTICLES 


his contemporaries. The ascending pathway of the moral 
leaders of Israel was marked out by their expanding vi- 
sion of God and their deepening sense of His purpose in 
history; not by the crudities and vagaries into which 
their inheritance of race hatreds and superstitions some- 
times betrayed them. The Bible frankly discloses both the 
greatness and the limitations of these men of God, and 
shows that from age to age the truths of morality and 
religion were given clearer and fuller announcement un- 
til they found their complete manifestation in the Christ. 
And that revelation made in its fullest form by Him goes 
on disclosing its larger meaning through the centuries. 
Revelation is not a closed volume. Holy men of yester- 
day and today still speak as they are moved by the Holy 
Spirit. 

The Fundamentalists believe in the complete authority 
of the Bible as a text-book of faith and conduct. Its 
commands are not to be questioned. They are all a part 
of the word of God, and not to be smoothed down into 
any form of compromise. The literal inspiration of the 
Bible leaves no room for any modification of its rules cf 
behavior. If the men of this school do not set the same 
store by the dietetic laws of Leviticus as they do by the 
Ten Commandments, it is only unintentional concession 
to modern views. If Paul’s rabbinical arguments in 
Galatians seem less convincing than the utterances of the 
Sermon on the Mount, it 1s only that the method of 
reasoning is more remote from our ways of thinking. All 
are alike, the word of God. It is only proper reverence 
to accept them as such, and to conform intellect and will 
to their control. Not only in matters of instruction as 
to faith and conduct is the Bible authoritative, but as well 
in the area of fact. All statements made regarding mat- 
ters of record are to be accepted with unquestioning as- 
sent. The accounts of creation, of the long-lived patri- 
archs, of the miracles in the lives of the prophets and the 
apostles, however difficult to understand or to evaluate 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 195 


as worthful for religion, are to be taken at their face 
value. This alone is the attitude of faith in the authority 
of the Holy Scripture. 

The Modernist also holds the Bible to be authoritative 
in the field of religion and morals. But he is confronted 
at each step of his study with the fact that everywhere 
the Scriptures make their appeal to intelligence and con- 
science, and demand of their readers discrimination be- 
tween fact and fiction, between formal command and 
figure of speech, between abiding principles and tempor- 
ary admonitions. To refuse to make such obvious dis- 
tinctions in the use of Scripture is to abdicate the em- 
ployment of the rational faculties which are as much the 
eift of God as are the Scriptures themselves. It requires 
no labored argument to demonstrate the fact that there 
are varying levels of authoritative appeal in the Bible. 
The moral and spiritual teachings of Jesus and His first 
interpreters require no elaborate defense. They are self- 
evidencing to a degree not shared by the ethical stand- 
ards of earlier teachers. The authority of the Bible is 
reasonable and self-attesting, not arbitrary or mechani- 
cal. Its commands are obligatory not because they are 
enshrined in a holy book but because they are 
eternally true and self-vindicating. It is the challenge 
which the Bible offers to the highest intelligence and the 
most discriminating judgment which constitutes its 
unique authority. 

And the Bible is the final authority in matters of the 
holy life. The Fundamentalist regards it as such because 
it is the last word from God and cannot be superseded. 
The Modernist regards this as too simple and easy a solu- 
tion of the matter. He recognizes the advancing nature 
of the divine revelation, and is undisturbed by the pos- 
sibility that yet fuller disclosures of God’s nature and 
purpose may take form. To deny this would be to as- 
sume an ommiscience which no open-minded witness of 
the divine work in the world would claim. No one who 


196 SELECTED ARTICLES 


rightly estimates the moral and spiritual finality of Jesus 
is fearful that He will be displaced in the leadership of 
the race, or that the book which is the record of His 
life and message will be pushed from its position as the 
supreme literary guide in those matters which most con- 
cern our human life. 


WE SHOULDI NOT CLAIM BIBLICALUINE Aitiaa 
BULLY & 


The Fundamentalists assert that the Bible is without 
error and infallible, and, therefore, authoritative. But 
when the inquiring mind asks for the basis of the belief 
in the inerrancy of Scripture it is told that it is based 
upon the fact that multitudes have long believed it, at 
least since the days of the Reformation. In other words, 
the basis of the belief in the inerrancy of the Bible is the 
prestige of the opinion itself. 

But such prestige loses its force when we reflect that 
multitudes as great believed for as long a period that the 
earth was flat, or later that the sun moved around it. 

If we seek a further basis for belief in the inerrancy 
of the Bible we are told that the Bible itself claims to be 
inerrant, and that its claims are self-authenticating. But 
on examination we find in the Bible no such claim. And 
even if we did find it there, we should be compelled to 
qguéstion whether any such claim could be self-authenti- 
cated. A government inspector came into a store the 
other day. He saw a piece of metal on the counter plainly 
marked “One Pound.” But he could not accept the claim 
as self-authenticated. He must apply to it the tests to 
which all weights and measures must be submitted. In- 
fallibility cannot be established by self-authenticating 
authority ; only by evidence. 

The greatest of all books, undoubtedly, is the Bible, 
the supreme literature of the spiritual life, a record of 


1 By Rev. Robert A. Ashworth, D.D. Christian Work. 116: 268-70. 
March 1, 1924. Modernism and Christian Assurance. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 107 


the unfolding spiritual experience of the race which must 
remain an invaluable guide and corrective for all who are 
seeking God, but it is not infallible or inerrant, nor does 
it claim to be so. 


LUTHER’S FREE ATTITUDE TOWARD THE 
BIBLE’ 


Christ is the Master, the Scriptures are the servant, 
Here is the true touchstone for testing all the books; we 
must see whether they work the works of Christ or not. 

. In fact, the Gospel of John and his First Epistle, the 
Epistles of Paul, particularly those to the Romans, the 
Galatians, and the Ephesians, and the First Epistle of 
Peter, these are the books which show thee Christ and 
teach thee all that it is good and necessary for thee to 
know, though thou shouldst never hear nor see any other 
books. As for the others, the Epistle of James is a veri- 
table epistle of straw, for there is nothing evangelical 
in it. 

Without any doubt, the prophets had studied the 
books of Moses, and the late ones those of their pre- 
decessors and filled with the Spirit of God they com- 
mitted their good thoughts to writing. But this is not to 
say that these doctors, scrutinizing the Scriptures, did not 
sometimes find wood, hay, and stubble, and not always 
gold, silver, or diamonds. Nevertheless the essential 
abides and the fire consumes the rest. 


HOWe titer > hE Beer Dr ONE ow UM bi Tne 
THE FREER VIEW * 


During the seventies I was raeers in attendance upon 
a weekly conference of ministers. ... More than once 


1 Quoted by Sabatier, in Religions of Authority. p. 158-9, from Luther’s 
Me de Erlangen ed., Ixii, p. 128-33; Ixiii, p. 157-379. 
y W. N. Clarke. Sixty Years with the Bible. p. 1o2ff. Copyright 
(1912), Charles Scribners’ Sons. Reprinted by permission of the pub- 
ishers. 


198 SELECTED ARTICLES 


in the decade the advent question was taken up. ... The 
premillennial and postmillennial views of the advent 
were presented, elaborated, and defended, sometimes 
with conspicuous power. It was not in vain, though the 
results were not such as the disputants were seeking. In 
consequence of the discussion several things became clear 
to me, some at once and some on further reflection. 

The first thing that I observed was that neither of the 
two theories could be better defended from the Bible 
than the other. Either could be defended perfectly well, 
by making proper selection of proof-texts. The Bible 
contained the confident prediction of an early advent, and 
at the same time it contained an outlook upon the future 
that neither included an early advent nor had place for 
one. I observed that both doctrines were obtainable from 
the Bible, but was impressed by the fact that neither one 
was the doctrine of the Bible as a whole. In the sense 
of being found in the Scriptures, both were Scriptural: 
but in the better sense of rightly representing the Scrip- 
tures, neither’ was Soriptiral\ ss . 

... It was borne in upon me that the Bible contains 
material for two opposite and irreconcilable doctrines 
about the early return of Christ to this world. Both doc- 
trines cannot be true: one of them at least must rest upon 
misjudgment. Since this is a fact, it certainly cannot be 
that I am required to believe all that the Bible says be- 
cause the Bible says it. If either one of the theories is 
true, no matter which, I certainly am not bound by the 
testimony that the Bible bears in favor of the other. 
Whatever its nature may be, the book in which these 
facts are found cannot have been given me by God as a 
book that bears His own authority in support of all its 
statements. The book from which these two theories 
can be drawn is of necessity a different book from that. 
Thus the Bible itself, upon examination, shows me that 
it is not a book infallible throughout, in which error does 
not exist, and that I am not required to say that it is. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 199 


. . . The discussion showed that upon one point at 
least the early Christians, including apostles and writers 
of the New Testament, were mistaken—not only could 
be mistaken, but were. They believed that their Lord 
was soon to return to this world in visible glory. He 
did not so return: hence they cherished an expectation 
that was wrong... . It is true that I heard some of the 
best men I knew laboring hard to show that the expecta- 
tion did not exist, but their labor was in vain. I saw that 
it did exist, and that it proved to be a false expectation. ... 

From all this it followed that I was not obliged to 
agree with these writers in all that they had written, or 
to look upon them as infallible guides. It did not follow 
that, therefore, I ought to throw the Bible away, and I 
am thankful that that foolish suggestion so often sup- 
posed to attend upon such discoveries did not occur to 
me. But it did follow that I was not required to accept 
all statements in the Bible as true and all views that it 
contained as correct. And it was not some outside heretic 
or unbeliever that was persuading me to this conclusion: 
I was led to it by examination of the book itself. Its 
own contents bore witness to its errancy.... 

I confessed to myself that in my heart I did not know 
what an atonement was, or what was meant when the 
Son of God was called the propitiation for our sins... . 
I studied the Bible faithfully. But I found there various 
views of what Christ had done—one set of ideas in Paul, 
another in the Johannine writings, and another in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. I perceived that these were 
views of the great reality from various points, and that 
they could not be combined into one clear doctrine. I 
perceived, too, that it was not possible for any mind 
to agree with all these utterances, except in the broadest 
sense, if indeed a modern mind could really think any 
of them precisely as the writers thought them long ago. 
So I could not solve my problem by adducing the testi- 
mony of Scripture concerning the atonement as clear and 
final. 


200 SELECTED ARTICLES 


... The question lay in the realm of ethics. The 
decisive fact is the character of God. The God whom 
Jesus has revealed to us has acted in accordance with 
what He is... . It was morally impossible for me to be- 
lieve that He has done anything for our salvation that 
does not accord with and express His own character. 
If a voice of inspiration or a voice from heaven had 
told me that He had, I should have been compelled to 
say that the voice was not from God... 

... 1 was inquiring for myself what the atonement 
was—not what the Old Testament had foreshadowed, 
or what Paul thought it was, or what it seemed to be 
in the light of the Jewish law, or what the church had 
taught, or what theologians had built up into doctrine, 
but what it really was, in the best moral and spiritual 
light that the Christian revelation ministered to the in- 


quiry....I could no more take my conclusion from dic- 
tation of the Bible than I could from dictation of the 
church. I was constrained to go back of both. ... The 


Bible was my indispensable and invaluable helper in the 
quest, but it had not been offered to me by God as con- 
taining the ready and final answer to my question, as I 
once supposed it had... . 

... 1 was not asking what the Bible specifically said 
upon my theme, but was taking the large truths that the 
Bible brought me, and wielding them as my instruments 
in a spiritual work of inquiry. I was not collecting the 
testimony of authoritative passages; I was moving in 
the spirit of the Bible toward apprehension of the great 
salvation of God. ... I was acting on the principle that 
the Bible was made for man, not man for the Bible, as 
I am sure the Master would have me act... . I had 
entered upon freedom of inquiry, and a broad world was 
before me, which I was sure that I should find to be the 
world of God. And the Bible had become the instru- 
ment of my liberty. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 201 


RELIGIOUS PROGRESS ILLUSTRATED 
WITHIN THE BIBLE? 


For one thing, there are some of us here this morn- 
ing who were brought up in a system of Christian think- 
ing in which, if we had remained, we would have been 
compelled either to give up our Christianity or else to 
commit deadly assault and battery on our growing in- 
telligence. We are thanking God today that we moved 
out from that Haran into a freer land. To make this 
concrete, how many of us at one time thought that the 
inspiration of the Bible made it from beginning to end 
a book upon a common infallible level. From Genesis to 
Revelation it was to us a book of equal spiritual insight 
and of equal authority. To be sure, even when we were 
boys we discovered to our anxiety that in the early manu- 
scripts of the Bible God walks as a man in the garden 
in the cool of the day or that on a mountain top He hides 
Moses in a rock’s cleft and puts His hand across the cleft 
so that Moses cannot see His face and yet can see His 
back, while in later manuscripts in the Bible we keep 
running across words like these: “No man hath seen 
God at any time.’ To be sure, even when we were boys 
we discovered to our discomfiture that in the early manu- 
scripts of the Bible God gives directions for the slaugh- 
ter of the Amalekites, men, women and children, without 
mercy; that directions are put on the lips of the Al- 
mighty for atrocities as horrible as disgraced this last 
war, while in the later manuscripts of the Bible we keep 
running on passages like this: “God is love;’ “He that 
abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him;” 
“Tt is not the will of your father who is in heaven, that 
one of these little ones should perish.” To be sure, in 
the early manuscripts, God travels in a box, a holy box 
they call the Ark, and when they have the Ark the pres- 


1 From Progressive Christianity, a sermon preached by Harry Emerson 
Fosdick, in the First Presbyterian Church, New York, May 8, Ig21. 


202 SELECTED ARTICLES 


ence of God is with them and when they lose the Ark 
they have lost the presence of God, and this Ark is so 
terrible a thing that when with all good-will a man tries 
to steady it, as Uzzah did when the oxen stumbled, he is 
smitten dead upon the spot, while in the latter manu- 
scripts God is in no box nor even on a mountain. “Neither 
in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the 
Father . . . God is a spirit; and they that worship Him 
must worship Him in spirit and truth.” “For in Him we 
live, and move, and have our being.” To be sure, we 
found that in early manuscripts there is a most scrupu- 
lous interest in clean and unclean food, as if man’s stand- 
ing before the face of God were dependent upon his 
scrupulous care in the observance of a kosher diet, while 
in the later manuscripts Jesus sweeps the whole question 
away: ‘There is nothing from without the man, that go- 
ing into him can defile him; but the things which pro- 
ceed out of the man are those that defile the man.” 

If about this matter, or others like it, some one should 
say: “Must we not keep the faith of our fathers?” the 
answer is surely clear: “Of course we must keep the 
faith of our fathers, but what do you mean by keeping 
the faith?” This is Mother’s Day. When you were born 
your mother wanted to keep you and she has kept you 
so that every year since you have loved her with a deeper 
understanding of her immeasurable grace. You are more 
deeply hers today than you were forty years ago, but 
she couldn’t have kept you by keeping you a baby. If 
she had tried that she would have lost you. The only 
way to keep a living thing is to let it grow. We must 
keep the faith of our fathers, but the faith of our fathers 
is not dead; it is alive. It is like a tree, it must grow. 
It is like a river, it must flow. It is like Abraham, it 
must migrate. And the surest way to kill it is to make 
it stay in Haran. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 203 


We eV OV One PELE. BiB EE Ts 
OWS Ooh sy i ee 


The word criticism (from zpivew, to judge). does 
not properly imply caviling or fault-finding; it means 
judgment, discernment, comprehension. Biblical criticism, 
which had its beginning, perhaps, in Spinoza’s ““Tractatus 
Theologico-Politicus,” and has had a marvelous develop- 
ment in the past century, is simply an open-minded at- 
tempt to understand the various documents that make 
up the Bible, their dates, authorship, purpose, and mean- 
ing. Our increasing knowledge of nature, of history, of 
psychology, and of comparative religion, the reconstruc- 
tion of more accurate texts through the discovery of new 
manuscripts and the patiently minute comparison of the 
thousands now available, the study of contemporary in- 
scriptions and remains, of the development of the He- 
brew and Greek languages and the precise meanings of 
their words, and the growth of a maturer historical 
method, that knows how to read between the lines of a 
narrative and discriminate trustworthy from unreliable 
materials—these manifold new resources have brought 
us to a far more intelligent appreciation of this mass of 
Jewish and Christian writings. Differences of opinion 
on many points still exist; and there are many things 
which we should like to know that must remain forever 
beyond reach of our investigation. But the general con- 
clusions of modern scholarship with regard to the Bible 
“cannot be denied without denying the ordinary prin- 
ciples by which history is judged and evidence estimated. 
Nor can it be doubted that the same conclusions, upon 
any neutral field of investigation, would have been ac- 
cepted without hesitation by all conversant with the 
subject.” ? 


1By Durant Drake. Problems of Religion. p. 267-73, 275. Reprinted 
by permission of the author and holder of the copyright. 

2 Quoted from the preface of Driver’s Introduction to the Old Testa- 
ment. 


204 SELECTED ARTICLES 


(1) It has, for one thing, been definitely proved 
that the traditional ascriptions of authorship of many of 
the Bible books are mistaken. The Pentateuch, for ex- 
ample, was not written till centuries after the time of 
Moses—as on the surface would seem probable from 
the fact that kings of Israel are mentioned therein, not 
to speak of the description of Moses’ own death! These 
books have been proved to be compilations dating from 
the period of the exile, incorporating two parallel nar- 
ratives of the eighth and ninth century, together with 
considerable later material; the parallel strands run side 
by side through a large part of them, and the compiler 
has not always well reconciled the divergent accounts. 
Again, few, if any, of the Psalms were written by David; 
most of them are post-exilic. Neither Ecclesiastes nor 
the Song of Solomon was written by Solomon. The 
greater part of the Book of Isaiah comes from a much 
later time. The probabilities are strongly against the au- 
thorship of the Gospels—with the exception of the 
Second Gospel—by the men whose names they bear. 
Some of the supposed epistles of Paul are certainly not 
from his hand, James is not by its reputed author, and 
2 Peter is a barefaced forgery. The Book of Revela- 
tion is a medley of apocalyptic literature, some of it pre- 
Christian, none of it by the author of the Fourth Gospel. 
These commonplaces of Biblical scholarship can be sub- 
stantiated by a study of any of the good recent introduc- 
tions to Old and New Testament. 

(2) But other facts have been brought to light much 
more significantly at variance with the old conceptions 
of the Bible. For one thing, many inconsistencies exist 
between different traditions that have both been incor- 
porated. When one verse flatly contradicts another, it 
is only by a difficult evasion that the believer can pre- 
serve his devout belief in the truth of both. For in- 
stance—to mention but a few—in Acts 9:7, speaking of 
Paul’s vision, we read, “And the men who journeyed 
with Him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 205 
man,’ while in Acts 22:9, which narrates the same ex- 
perience, we read, “And they that were with me saw in- 
deed the light, and were afraid;? but they heard not the 
voice of Him that spake to me.” Again, the first three 
Gospels make Christ eat the Last Supper on the eve of 
the Passover, and die on that day, while the Fourth 
Gospel relates that He died on the day of preparation for 
the Passover. Of the same census we read in 2 Sam. 
24:1, that the Lord commanded David to take it, and in 
1 Chron. 21:1, that it was Satan that put it into his mind. 
The two genealogies of Christ—both purporting to trace 
his ancestry back to David through Joseph—are flatly 
contradictory of each other, as indeed both conflict with 
the tradition, also accepted in the same two Gospels, of 
the virgin birth, whereby Joseph was held to be not his 
father at all. The infancy and resurrection stories at the 
beginning and end of Matthew and Luke are in many re- 
spects mutually incompatible. 

(3) Not merely inconsistent with one another, how- 
ever, but obviously untrue, are many of the Biblical 
statements. For example, the world was not made in 
six days (which were real days, “morning and evening,” 
to the narrator) nor in six geological epochs, except by a 
very arbitrary straining of facts. The order of creation 
given in Genesis differs from the order in which things 
really came into being. The sky is not a “firmament” 
(or partition) which divides the “waters which are under 
the firmament” from the “waters which are above the 
firmament.” This whole account of creation, which is 
closely parallel to earlier Babylonian accounts, reflects a 
very primitive conception of nature. Again, not a few 
statements in the historical books have been proved un- 
true by extant monuments, and the records of surround- 
ing nations; it is plain to the historical student that the 
Jewish chronicles are biased and to considerable extent 
untrustworthy. It is clear that the evangelists were in 


_ 3 The original reads “were not afraid,” which must be an unintentional 
misquotation. 


206 SELECTED ARTICLES 


many points mistaken in their views of the events of 
Jesus’ life. And the author of Acts, by his irreconcilable 
differences from the statements of Paul, shows a radical 
misconception of the nature of some of the events in the 
early history of the church. 

(4) But still more strikingly incompatible with the 
supernatural view of the Bible are the gross and im- 
moral ideas that are mingled with its noble and elevat- 
ing inspirations. No worse than contemporary cults, 
the Jahweh-worship of the Jews was at first no better; 
and even down to and beyond the times of Jesus certain 
ideas persisted that are repugnant to our humaner in- 
stincts. God’s anger and desire for vengeance are re- 
peatedly mentioned; and the picture the unprejudiced 
reader would form of this Jewish deity from many Old 
Testament passages is that of a cruel and blood-thirsty 
tyrant. He “hardens Pharaoh’s heart” that He may pun- 
ish the Egyptians in a spectacular mauner; He throws 
stones down from heaven on Israel’s foes; He commands 
the sun to stand still that more of them may be slain be- 
fore dark; He bids His chosen people invade the land of 
a neighboring tribe, burn all their cities, slay all the 
males, adults and children, and all the married women, 
and keep the virgins for their own enjoyment; He slays 
seventy thousand innocent Israelites for David’s sin in 
taking a census of the people. Jael and Rahab are 
praised, though guilty of the blackest crimes, because 
they were on Israel’s side. To the usurper Jehu, who 
entraps and murders numbers of innocent people, includ- 
ing children, to establish his power, the Lord declares, 
“Thou hast done well in executing that which is right in 
mine eyes.” Even the Psalms, with all their intense 
religious feeling, have much in them that is low and un- 
worthy—whining complaints over troubles, anathemas 
upon other peoples whom the Jews hated, vindictive ap- 
peals to Jehovah to persecute them. “O daughter of 
Babylon,” the psalmist says, ‘““Happy shall he be that 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 207 


rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he 
be that taketh and dasheth thy little children against 
the stones!” 

Even worse than the revengeful longings of the 
psalmist is the bitter threat of everlasting punishment 
for unbelievers in the Book of Revelation. He that wor- 
ships falsely “shall drink of the wine of the wrath of 
God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup 
of His indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire 
and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and 
in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their 
torment ascendeth up for ever and ever; and they have 
no rest day nor night.” Paul too had a grim and revolt- 
ing side to his faith: .. . “[God] hath mercy on whom 
He will have mercy and whom He will He hardeneth.... 
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same 
lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto 
dishonor?” And in one of the epistles we read, “God 
shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe 
a lie: that they all might be damned who believe not the 
truth.” 

Surely such sentiments need no comment! In the 
light of them, to teach that the teachings of the Bible 
are throughout divine and authoritative is to barbarize 
our moral ideas; to claim that such words as these are 
inspired of God is to worship a God who is at times a 
very devil. Wicked dogmas have been based on some 
of these texts, cruelties have been justified by them. Our 
forefathers put poor old women to death because of the 
verse “A witch shall not live.” Religious persecutors have 
pointed to the texts, “Constrain them to come in,” and 
“Gather up the tares in bundles and burn them.” The 
subjection of women has justified itself from the say- 
ing, “ I will not suffer a woman to teach ... but to be in 
silence.’ 

These bits of dross amid the gold do not destroy 
the worth of the Bible, but they do make sharply against 


208 SELECTED ARTICLES 


the conception of it as everywhere inspired and authori- 
tative. It is important, to get a right appreciation of it, 
that we face these facts. Indiscriminate praise hurts 
rather than helps in the long run. The Bible is a very 
human book; it pictures the progress of a very primitive 
people toward a love of the highest things; its writers 
are often mistaken, often biased, often possessed with 
illusions, sometimes possessed with human weakness and 
passion. We must read it as we would read any other 
book, passing lightly over the unhelpful parts, dwelling 
on what is true and elevating, and thus making it a stimu- 
lus, never a hindrance to our inward growth. 

... Finally, how, or in what sense, has the Bible 
authority? In a word, its authority is that of the truth 
which it contains, no more. We cannot call a statement 
true simply because the Bible says so; but whatever of 
truth the mature experience of Christendom finds in the 
Bible demands our allegiance—not because it is in the 
Bible, but because it is true. 


PROFOUND EFFECTS OF BIBLICAL 
GRITICISM 


... [Biblical criticism] had had theological effects of 
the very greatest significance. It is not that simply our 
view of the Bible has changed as a result of it, but our 
whole view of religious authority has changed. As we 
have learned not to think of the Bible as a final and in- 
fallible authority, as the ultimate court of appeal in all 
matters of human concern, we have come to see that: 
there is no such authority and that we need none. The 
result has been a change of perspective and a readjust- 
ment of values of simply untold consequence. Biblical 
criticism may seem often to concern itself with matters 
of minor importance and of very small religious interest, 

1 By A. C. McGiffert, president of Union Theological Seminary, New 


York, American Journal of Theology. 10: 326-7. July, 1916. The Progress 
of Theological Thought During the Past Fifty Years. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 209 


but it has cut deeper into the traditions of the past than 
any other single movement and has made our modern 
theological liberty possible. The conservatives who 
feared and opposed it in its early days, because they saw 
what’ a revolution it portended, were far more clear- 
sighted than most of the liberals, who thought that it 
meant simply a slight shifting of position, and imagined 
that they could retain religious and moral infallibility 
while giving up all other kinds. Fortunately, few realized 
all that was involved, or they would have feared to go 
forward, as Luther declared he would have feared to 
begin his reforming work had he known how far it would 
lead him. But it is now becoming clear ihat, largely 
through modern Biblical criticism, we have at last won 
that spiritual freedom which even the Reformers failed 
to attain, and without which permanent progress is im- 
possible in religion as in everything else. 


ee ORY Or or VERBAL LN SE LR AION 
GOIN LANE UBD AB SU Ry) AND 
UNNECESSARY * 


If you ask why so absurd a theory held such long- 
continued sway over the minds of men, the answer is 
that the theory of verbal inspiration is the simplest of 
all possible theories, and the most easily managed. If 
you can say that God wrote this book from the first 
word to the last, you say something which a child can 
understand, and so long as you believe this you know 
exactly where you are. If anybody says there are mys- 
’ teries in the Bible, you can reply there are mysteries 
in nature; if some one says there are contradictions in 
the Scriptures, you can say there are contradictions 
everywhere. If some one says there are pages here which 
are unsavory or which apparently have no significance, 
you can say that that is because we do not discern the 


1 By C. E. Jefferson. Things Fundamental. p. 115-16. Copyright (1903), 
T. Y. Crowell Company. Reprinted by permission of the publishers. 


210 SELECTED ARTICLES 


hidden, spiritual meanings. If some one says there are 
moral atrocities sanctioned in the Bible, you can reply 
with indignation, “Who are you that you should find fault 
with God?” A tight, cast-iron theory is exceedingly sat- 
isfactory, because so long as you have it you know where 
you are, and any other theory, no matter what it may be, 
is loose and gets you into trouble. If you say there is 
a human element in the Bible, then who is going to tell 
which is human and which is divine? If you say there 
are errors in the Bible, how is a man to know what is 
error and what is truth?» If you say that the Bible writers 
were mistaken in scientific matters, the question comes, 
may they not have been mistaken in everything? And 
so men say in their haste: all the Bible or none. I will 
swallow it whole, or I will have none of it. You say 
there are errors in it, then it is all falsehood; if these 
men were mistaken, then we have no revelation, we might 
as well burn up the Bible, the church is doomed to de- 
struction, the world is going to the devil, let us all sit 
down and cry! That is the way men speak when they 
speak foolishly. 


GOD CAN USE FICTION AND MYTH AS WELL 
TeWeyiden ll es A OAGy G2 


If a vote should be taken among Christian people on 
the question as to what book should be added to the 
Scriptures if any addition could be made, a large ma- 
jority would undoubtedly vote in favor of Bunyan’s 
“Pilgrim’s Progress,’ which is fiction pure and simple 
from beginning to end. God has used that work of Bun- 
yans in a most marvellous way. He made use of the 
novels of Dickens to bring about great reforms in Eng- 
land. He has used “Black Beauty” to create tenderness 
for animals. If He uses fiction among Englishmen and 


1 By E. Jefferson. Things Fundamental. p. 130-3. Copyright (1903) 
Latte eel Company. Reprinted by permission of the publi sherk , 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 2it 


Americans, why should He never have used fiction among 
the Jews? 

But some one says that Jesus quoted this book 
[Jonah] as history. How do you know He did? He 
quoted it, but by His quotation we are not driven to infer 
that it is history. Every religious teacher draws his illus- 
trations from books of poetry and from books of fiction 
as well as from books of history. I am constantly taking 
my illustrations from Shakespeare. Cordelia and King 
Lear, Rosalind and Jaques, Portia and Shylock, Romeo 
and Juliet, Othello and Desdemona—these are among my 
dearest friends. I quote their words just as I should 
quote the words of historic people. I should not hesi- 
tate to say in a sermon that “Just as the witches in ‘Mac- 
beth’ poured various ingredients into a cauldron in order 
to form a hellish broth, so do evil spirits throw wicked 
thoughts and wicked feelings into human hearts, causing 
a hell broth to boil and bubble there.” I hope no man 
would go away and say, “That minister is superstitious, 
he believes in witches.” Now if you allow me, a religious 
teacher living in the twentieth century, to draw my illus- 
trations from fiction, why not give Jesus of Nazareth 
the same privilege? 

There is a further question, Is there such a thing as 
a myth in the Bible? Some one may hold up his hands 
in horror at this and say. “Now, please don’t! It is bad 
enough to have poetry and fiction in the Bible; but if 
you make out that a part of the Scriptures is myth, then 
the sacred book must go.’ Let us see in the first place 
what a myth is. Some people do not know. They think 
that a myth is a lie. A myth is nothing but a story that 
has come down from an immemorial past. It is a story, 
the author of which is unknown, the origin of which no 
one can ascertain. Are there any such stories in the 
Bible? We cannot tell by theorizing, we must read the 
Bible and find out. We open the big book, and the very 
first page we read that God created the earth and the 


212 SELECTED ARTICLES 


heavens in six days, and then rested. That sounds like 
a story. It will not do to say that He created the world 
in six ages, for the word “day” does not mean age—it 
means a day of twenty-four hours. The Bible at the very 
beginning asserts that the heavens and the earth and man 
were all created inside of a week. We turn the page and 
we read of the creation of woman. The man falls asleep, 
God takes a rib from his side, and out of this rib creates 
a woman. That sounds like a story. In the third chap- 
ter we read of God walking in a garden in the cool of 
the day. A man and a woman have done wrong. They 
hide themselves. A snake has been talking to them. It 
all sounds like a story. If we should meet with it any-- 
where else, we should know it was a story. Why, then, 
if we find it in the Bible should we say that it is science 
or that it is history? Some one may say, “But would 
God use a story?’ Indeed He would—at least He does. 

Mothers are the great story-tellers of the world. They 
feed their children upon stories. . . . The story-telling 
power is built up in mothers in order to meet the story 
hunger in the child heart. Now all this is of God. And 
if God allows mothers to bring up their children on 
stories, I do not think He would hesitate to use stories 
Himself in the training of a world. 


THE NEW TESTAMENT NOT INTENDED TO BE 
AM DIV IN EVORAGIE 


This apostolic inspiration did not put those whom it 
touched beyond the possibility of human fallibility. Paul 
at Antioch was obliged to rebuke Peter severely for a 
moral error. He himself carefully distinguishes between 
the eternal religious verity, the very commandments of 
Christ, and his own individual views. . . . Luke had cer- 
tainly received the Spirit of God. But read again the 
prologue to his Gospel: does he speak otherwise than as 


1 By Auguste Sabatier. Religions of Authority. p. 168-9. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 213 


a good historian of his time, who has carried on a process 
of research and criticism in order to give a more full 
and accurate account than those given by his predeces- 
sors? Is there a single one of these writers—save per- 
haps the author of the Apocalypse, faithful in this re- 
spect to the literary class in which he works—is there a 
single one, I ask, who did not write for the occasion, in 
view of the requirements of circumstances, or who pre- 
sents his work as a divine writing, to be added to the 
canon of the Old Testament? 

These writings, therefore, have no appearance of be- 
ing the authorized publication of divine oracles; they ap- 
pear as the spontaneous production of a great classic 
literature, born of a profound religious faith, of a pow- 
erful common inspiration, but in which the general unity 
does not exclude a diversity of genius, of thought, and 
of style, and in which are not lacking, side by side with 
beautiful thoughts and striking truths, imperfections of 
forms, errors of detail, traces of former prejudices, and 
long superannuated methods of exegesis and reasoning. 


THE OLD ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY AND 
MIRACLES IS WORTHLESS* 


If we take the Old Testament prophecies literally, it 
is clear that they were not fulfilled in the New, and the 
claims of Christianity are false. If we interpret them 
allegorically, it is still clear that they prove nothing, for 
there are no ancient texts that may not be thus adjusted 
to a later history. 

The argument from miracles is even less weighty. 
Supposing them to be true, they prove nothing, for a 
healthy reason would simply believe itself to be in the 
presence of phenomena whose causes it fails to grasp. 
How shall a positive demonstration be drawn from an 
avowal of ignorance? Is it not easier to make the con- 


1 By Auguste Sabatier. Religions of Authority. p, 201. 


214 SELECTED, ARTICLES 


science accept the moral teachings of Christ than to con- 
vince the reason of the reality of miracles and of His 
corporeal resurrection? 


INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY IN PROTESTANTISM 
ISPILLOGICAIs 


The Protestant dogma of authority never had, nor 
could have, the simplicity, the plenitude, the efficacy of 
the Catholic dogma. For Protestantism to undertake to 
constitute such a dogma is a pure inconsistency. The 
Protestant churches do not believe themselves infallible; 
how, then, can they constitute an infallible canon of 
sacred books, or borrow such a canon without the slight- 
est criticism from the tradition of another church, a 
thousand times convicted of error? 


LOE BIBLE VALUABLE BUT NOV PR RED Care 


What, then, is Scripture, and what honour belongs 
to it? In truth a very great honour. It is not the mis- 
tress of true Christianity, but it is its servant. The serv- 
ant need not be perfect; it suffices that she be faithful. 
Scripture is the fixation on paper of the evident Chris- 
tian tradition; but because it is the earliest it is also the 
surest, and as the document most worthy of faith of all 
that we possess, forever commands the respect of all 
those who, like the Reformers, desire to go to the foun- 
tain-head and learn the authentic gospel from Christ and 
His apostles. 

Yet this earliest tradition, taken as a whole, is not 
more secure than others from error, forgetfulness, im- 
perfections, and additions. If it contains gold and sil- 
ver, said Luther, it has also its hay and stubble. This 
is why it is ever subject to the criticism both of the 


1 By Auguste Sabatier. Religions of Authority. p. 154. 
2 By Auguste Sabatier. Religions of Authority. p. 162. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 215 


Christian consciousness and of science. Far from ex- 
cluding necessary criticism, the original principle of 
Protestantism requires and inaugurates it. 


Vie Ee NOI DEPEND ON A THORTLY IN 
RELIGION ? 


Obviously, the point where this progressive concep- 
tion of Christianity comes into conflict with many widely 
accepted ideas is the abandonment which it involves of 
an external and inerrant authority in matters of re- 
ligion. The marvel is that that idea of authority, which 
is one of the historic curses of religion, should be re- 
garded by so many as one of the vital necessities of the 
faith. The fact is that religion by its very nature is 
one of the realms to which external authority is least 
applicable. In science people commonly suppose that they 
do not take truth on any one’s authority; they prove it. 
In business they do not accept methods on authority; 
they work them out. In statesmanship they no longer 
believe in the divine right of kings nor do they accept 
infallible dicta handed down from above. But they think 
that religion is delivered to them by authority and that 
they believe what they do believe because a divine church 
or a divine book or a divine man told them. 

In this common mode of thinking, popular ideas have 
the truth turned upside down. The fact is that science, 
not religion, is the realm where most of all we use ex- 
ternal authority. They tell us that there are millions 
of solar systems scattered through the fields of space. 
Is that true? How do we know? We never counted 
them. We know only what the authorities say. They 
tell us that the next great problem in science is breaking 
up the atom to discover the incalculable resources of 
power there waiting to be harnessed by our skill. Is that 

1 By Harry Emerson Fosdick. i ovlnoes he and Progress. p. 157-65. 


Copyright (1922), Fleming H. Revell & Co. Reprinted by permission of 
the publishers, 


216 SELECTED ARTICLES 


true? Most of us do not understand what an atom is, 
and what it means to break one up passes the farthest 
reach of our imaginations; all we know is what the 
authorities say. They tell us that electricity is a mode 
of motion in ether. Is that true? Most of us have 
no first-hand knowledge about electricity. The motor- 
man calls it “juice” and that means as much to us as to 
call it a mode of motion in ether; we must rely on the 
authorities. They tell us that sometime we are going 
to talk through wireless telephones across thousands of 
miles, so that no man need ever be out of vocal com- 
munication with his family and friends. Is that true? 
It seems to us an incredible miracle, but we suppose that 
it is so, as the authorities say. In a word, the idea that 
we do not use authority in science is absurd. Science is 
precisely the place where nine hundred and ninety-nine 
men out of a thousand use authority the most. The 
chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy which the author- 
ities teach is the only science which most of us possess. 

There is another realm, however, where we never 
think of taking such an attitude. They tell us that 
friendship is beautiful. Is that true? Would we ever 
think of saying that we do not know, ourselves, but that 
we rely on the authorities? Far better to say that our 
experience with friendship has been unhappy and that 
we personally question its utility! That, at least, would 
have an accent of personal, original experience in it. For 
here we are facing a realm where we never can enter 
at all until we enter, each man for himself. 

Two realms exist, therefore, in each of which first- 
hand experience is desirable, but in only one of which 
it is absolutely indispensable. We can live on what the 
authorities in physics say, but there are no proxies for 
the soul. Love, friendship, delight in music and in na- 
ture, parental affection—these things are like eating and 
breathing ; no one can do them for us; we must enter the 
experience for ourselves, Religion, too, belongs in this 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 217 


last realm. The one vital thing in religion is first-hand, 
personal experience. Religion is the most intimate, in- 
ward, incommunicable fellowship of the human soul. In 
the words of Plotinus, religion is “the flight of the alone 
to the Alone.” You never know God at all until you know 
Him for yourself. The only God you ever will know is 
the God you do know for yourself. 

This does not mean, of course, that there are no 
authorities in religion. There are authorities in every- 
thing, but the function of an authority in religion, as in 
every other vital realm, is not to take the place of our 
eyes, seeing in our stead and inerrantly declaring to us 
what it sees; the function of an authority is to bring to 
us the insight of the world’s accumulated wisdom and 
the revelations of God’s seers, and so to open our eyes 
that we may see, each man for himself... . That is the 
only use of authority in a vital realm. It can lead us up to 
the threshold of a great experience where we must en- 
ter, each man for himself, and that service to the spirit- 
ual life is the Bible’s inestimable gift... . 

If, however, Christianity is thus a life, we cannot 
stereotype its expressions in set and final forms. If it 
is a life in fellowship with the living God, it will think 
new thoughts, build new organizations, expand into new 
symbolic expressions. We cannot at any given time 
write “‘finis” after its development. We can no more 
“keep the faith” by stopping its growth than we can keep 
a son by insisting on his being forever a child. ... He 
who believes in the living God, while he will be far 
from calling all change progress, and while he will, ac- 
cording to his judgment, withstand perverse changes 
with all his might, will also regard the cessation of 
change as the greatest calamity that could befall re- 
ligion. Stagnation in thought or enterprise means death 
for Christianity as certainly as it does for any other vital 
movement. Stagnation, not change, is Christianity’s most 
deadly enemy, for this is a progressive world, and in a 


218 SELECTED ARTICLES 


progressive world no doom is more certain than that 
which awaits whatever is belated, obscurantist and re- 
actionary. 


CHRISTIANITY AND THE NEW LIGHT? 


There are many people who seem to think that all 
the changes which are now palpably passing over the 
religious belief, not only of scholars and students but 
of ordinary religious people, are changes for the worse. 
They may perhaps be inevitable, they may be forced upon 
us by loyalty to truth, but, it is assumed, they cannot 
possibly represent, from a moral and spiritual point of 
view, any improvement upon the theories of the uni- 
verse which are being discarded. They cannot possibly 
constitute a spiritual gain. The most that the modern 
theologian or apologist can do is to prevent the new truth 
doing any particular harm. Old ideas are given up re- 
gretfully and half-heartedly and the religious man tries 
to console himself with the reflection that after all enough 
is left of the old truth to enable people to lead decent 
lives and go to heaven when they die, although the 
church can hardly hope nowadays to produce such saints 
as were produced before the days when modern science 
and research had begun to limit the number and the bur- 
densomeness of the beliefs which used to be considered 
necessary to salvation. 


HIGHER SPIRITUAL IDEAS 


It seems to me that this attitude is a very great mis- 
take. I believe that modern science and historical study 
have given us, not only truer but higher and more spirit- 
ually helpful ideas about human life than the beliefs 
which are being outlived. And not only so, but the new 
truth, so far from overshadowing or supplanting what 


1 By the late H. Hastings Rashdall, Dean of Carlisle. Christian Cen- 
tury. 40: 235-7. February 22, 1923. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 219 


was really valuable in the traditions of the past, has been 
the means of helping us to understand and appreciate 
better than ever before that great central revelation which 
God has once for all made of Himself in our Lord Jesus 
Christ. We cannot assume, indeed, that every new truth 
must represent from a moral and spiritual point of view 
an improvement upon the old. It is a quite irrelevant 
objection to the teaching of newly discovered facts or 
truths to urge that they are not edifying. We have got 
to recognize the facts whether we think them edifying 
or not. It is dishonest not to do so. But very often 
they are truths which from a strictly moral or religious 
point of view make simply no difference. I do not know 
that there is any great religious gain in believing that the 
earth goes round the sun instead of believing, as men 
used to do, that the sun goes round the earth; or in be- 
lieving that the world took millions of years to make, 
instead of six days; or that men grew out of monkeys, 
instead of being the descendants of a specially created 
first man. But it is never right to refuse to listen to new 
views because they do not seem more edifying than the 
old ones, or even because they may on the face of them 
seem to be less edifying. It is a duty to pursue and make 
known the truth, whether we like it or not. But in point 
of fact I am fully persuaded that many of the changes 
which have in the course of the last century or so passed 
over human thought do not merely represent an advance 
from the point of view of science and of history, but 
tend to give us higher and nobler ideas about God, about 
Christ, about the meaning and purpose of human life than 
those which they have superseded. 

Beyond all doubt the greatest change which has taken 
place in the religious outlook of Christian people during 
the last century has been a change in their attitude 
toward the Bible, especially toward the Old Testament. 
It used to be believed both by learned men and by aver- 
age Christians that the whole Bible was absolutely and 
literally true—in matters of science, in matters of his- 


220 SELECTED ARTICLES 


tory, and in matters of religion and morality—equally 
true in all its parts. Now just consider to what a view 
of God’s nature that committed people. It implied that 
God revealed Himself exclusively to one favorite nation 
—loved that nation and cared little or not at all for the 
rest of humanity. There are parts of the Old Testament 
which seem to suggest that the heathen were created for 
no other purpose than that they shall ultimately be de- 
stroyed, and so increase the triumph of the favored 
people of God. That old theory implied that God issued 
a number of arbitrary injunctions about sacrifices and 
foods and ritual observances of various kinds, and an- 
nounced the most appalling punishments for the viola- 
tion of these injunctions. Sabbath breaking, for instance, 
was by the old Jewish law punished with death. So was 
the imaginary offense of witchcraft. Moreover, the old 
view assumed that God from time to time commanded 
the Israelites to do all sorts of unrighteous and cruel 
acts: to borrow jewelry from the Egyptians without any 
intention of restoring it, to massacre the inhabitants of 
the country which without any pretense of right or jus- 
tice they were invading, and the like. The God of the 
Israelites was thought of, like the gods of the heathen, 
as delighting in the smell of sacrifice and offerings, and 
requiring such things as the condition of his favor, and 
as a God who always fought on the side of his favorite 
nation, whether they were right or wrong. If ever he 
turned against them it was as a punishment for their dis- 
loyalty to Himself, not out of justice to their enemies. 


THE Otp TESTAMENT 


So long as these Old Testament writings were thought 
of, not as a record of the religious ideas entertained by 
a primitive people on its way to a higher religion, not as 
a stage in the gradual self-revelation of God to the human 
mind, but as containing the actual words of direct divine 
communications made from time to time by some mechan- 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 221 


ically supernatural method, so long it was utterly impos- 
sible for man fully to appreciate the higher truth which 
God revealed to the great prophets of the eighth and fol- 
lowing centuries before Christ. How utterly hopeless it 
is to reconcile such ideas of God as are implied in parts 
of the pentateuchal law with such teachings as we find in 
Isaiah about a God who delights not in the blood of bul- 
locks or of lambs or of he-goats, to whom incense and 
the observances connected with the Sabbath and the new 
moon are an abomination; or with the teaching implied 
in Micah’s question: “Will the Lord be pleased with thou- 
sands of rams, or with ten thousand rivers of oil? He 
hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth 
the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love 
mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” 


Law AND PROPHETS 


One of the most beneficent results of the better study 
and appreciation of the Old Testament during the last 
century or so has been completely to reverse the old con- 
ception as to the relative importance of the law and the 
prophets. It has shown us that, if we want to see the 
Jewish religion at its highest, we must look, not so much 
to the law as to the prophets, and that we must not seek 
to reconcile the higher and more ethical religion of the 
prophets with the religion of the priests, which, though 
the actual formulation of it in our present Pentateuch is 
for the most part later than the days of the exile, repre- 
sents for the most part an earlier stage in the develop- 
ment of religion. We are now able to appreciate the 
religion of the Jewish prophets as it was quite impos- 
sible to do when they were regarded as simply on a level 
with the compilers of the legal books. Some qualifica- 
tions would have to be made if we were to go into detail. 
Much of the higher prophetic teaching has found its 
way into the Pentateuch, particularly its stern mono- 
theism, its horror of idolatry, its clear and definite for- 


222 SELECTED ARTICLES 


mulation of elementary moral rules. On the other hand, 
the prophets were not all of them entirely emancipated 
from the limitations and imperfections of the priestly re- 
ligion. But, broadly speaking, in the law you find those 
features of Israel’s religion which were more or less 
common to the religions of the ancient world. It is in 
the prophets that you find the really distinctive and char- 
acteristic features of Israel’s religion, the features which 
raise it to a higher level than all other religions of the an- 
cient world and which make it more definitely than any 
other the preparation for that full and complete revela- 
tion which God has made of Himself in our Lord Jesus 
Christ. 
THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH 


And still more the idea of an infallible and equally 
inspired Bible made it impossible for men to appreciate 
the superiority of our Lord’s own teaching even to the 
highest teaching of the Old Testament. It was impos- 
sible to do justice to Christ’s great conception of God 
as the common Father and Lover of mankind, so long 
as it was supposed that up to the date of Christ's com- 
ing God really had a favorite nation—not, as St. Paul 
taught, a nation entrusted with a particular mission for 
the eventual good of the whole world, but a nation loved 
by a God who hated other nations. It was impossible 
to appreciate the Christian idea of God as pure love, so 
long as it was supposed that He had not merely per- 
mitted as part of His general plan for the education of 
the world, but expressly and by supernatural interposi- 
tion enjoined all the atrocities of the Old Treatment. 
It was impossible to appreciate Christ’s idea of God as 
always willing to forgive sin upon the one condition of 
true repentance so long as it was supposed that at one 
time He had really required and insisted upon all the 
sacrifices and offerings prescribed by Jewish law. 

When we look back upon the enormous spiritual gain 
of these results of modern scholarship I feel inclined to 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 223 


say exultantly and thankfully that in no age of the world 
since the very earliest days of Christianity has there been 
a more signal, perhaps so signal, a fulfilment of the 
Johannine promise that when the spirit of truth shall 
come He will guide Christ’s disciples into all truth. So 
much has modern study helped us to understand the re- 
ligion of Christ that one sometimes feels inclined to say 
that the church has never really understood before that 
emancipation of Christianity from the restrictions and 
limitations of Judaism which was begun by St. Paul but 
which has hardly been completed yet. The church has 
always been slipping back into the old realism from 
which, as St. Paul taught, Christ came to set us free— 
either seeking to reimpose features of the old legal sys- 
tem or inventing fresh legalisms, inventing fresh fastings, 
penances, expiations, exclusive priesthoods, burdensome 
external ordinances of one kind or another which are 
equally opposed to the glorious liberty of the Christian 
religion. 
Not AN EAsy RELIGION 


But let us not for one moment suppose that this 
better understanding of the Christian religion has made 
it an easier religion than once it seemed. From the 
point of view of ceremonial observances, our Lord could 
exclaim, “My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” But 
we must remember that He taught also that except the 
righteousness of His disciples exceeded the righteousness 
of the scribes and pharisees, they should in no wise enter 
into the kingdom of heaven. In spite of all the intel- 
lectual limitations and perplexities which beset the Chris- 
tian thought of the past, there have been saints in all 
ages who really have entered into the inmost spirit of 
the Christian religion and practised what they under- 
stood of it. But when we think of the average practise 
of the religious world, especially the religious world of 
rich or comfortable people, we are inclined to say that, 
little as Christianity has been understood in the past, 


224 po a Od AB Wed be CO IS: 


still less has it been practised. When we compare the 
standard of devotion to the common good which Christ 
demands with the attitude toward the pursuit and enjoy- 
ment of wealth which has been adopted by conventional 
religious circles, one does feel tempted to say it is a mis- 
take to say that Christianity has failed, because it has 
never been tried. But it is better not to say that. That 
is, after all, really a foolish and superficial thing to say. 
If Christianity had not been tried in the past, it is not 
very likely that it will get a better trial now. 

It seems to me that such remarks do gross injustice 
to the past history of the Christian church—its martyrs, 
its heroes, its confessors, and the masses cf quiet re- 
ligious-minded people who have really striven to realize 
Christ’s ideal of unselfish devotion to the good of their 
fellows—none the less so that many of them may have 
intellectually believed some things which were really in- 
consistent with that ideal. Ideals are none the less true 
even though on any great and wide social scale they have 
never been fully realized. Such realization of the Chris- 
tian ideal as there has been in the past is none the less 
the noblest chapter of human history because at its best 
it has been imperfect, marred by the intellectual limita- 
tions as well as the moral infirmities of human beings. 
The best Christians in all ages have largely risen above 
the intellectual mistakes of their theoretical creeds. Many 
of those who have put forward theories of God’s deal- 
ings with men which seem to involve the most unworthy 
and inadequate conceptions of Him have in their lives 
shown how completely they have understood the central 
Christian doctrine that God is love. Let-us recognize 
that our better intellectual apprehension of what Chris- 
tianity is only increases our obligation to tread in their 
footsteps. Never let us imagine for one moment that 
our freedom from the mistakes and misapprehensions of 
the past is going to make Christianity an easier and less 
exacting religion than it was to those who first heard 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 225 


the words: “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for strait 
is the way and narrow is the gate that leadeth unto life.” 
Only then the straitness of the gate and the narrowness 
of the way are for us due to the needs and necessities 
of our fellow men and the self-denial and self-sacrifice 
that is necessarily involved in serving them. 


GREAT GAINS FROM THE NEW VIEW* 


For one thing, it is no small matter that we can now 
feel reasonably certain of what the New Testament is, 
and what it is meant to teach us. In old days enquiry 
was forbidden. The book was simply thrust upon Chris- 
tian men, and a merit was made of their accepting every- 
thing in it without doubt or question. Such a demand 
was always felt to be unjust, and in this age, when every- 
thing else is subjected to the freest enquiry, it was be- 
coming more and more dangerous. . .. Criticism, 
whatever else it has done, has enabled us to get behind 
legends and conjectures and lay hold of facts. The facts 
may seem poorer than the imaginations, but at any rate 
they are facts. We know at last what our religion is 
based on; faith has found a real starting-point. 

But again, the effort to reach the facts has not impov- 
erished the New Testament, or the religion to which it 
witnesses. To be sure we are now obliged to recognize 
the human limitations of the book. We can see that doc- 
trines which were once supposed to embody the abso- 
lute truth were mixed up with much that was transient 
and mistaken. But all enquiry has served to deepen our 
reverence for the book as an expression of religion. We 
have been made to realize that the writers were seeking to 
define, in terms however inadequate, things which they 
intensely felt, and which, in their inmost meaning, must 
stand forever. Because it thus takes us so close to the 

1 By E. F. Scott, professor in Union Theological Seminary, New York. 


The New Testament Today. p. 87-92. Copyright (1921), The Macmillan 
Co. Reprinted by permission of the publishers. 


226 SELECTED FARTIICUES 


realities of religion the New Testament has more to give 
us than if it was an infallible guide to doctrine. We 
enter by means of it into communion with great seekers 
after God. Our very sense that they could only half ex- 
press themselves arouses us to a personal effort of faith 
and sympathy, so that we may reach through the letter 
to the living conviction that was in their minds. The 
modern enquiry has indeed made us more than ever 
doubtful of the traditional forms of Christianity, from 
which, in any case, the age had broken away. But it has 
brought us a far clearer insight into their inner signifi- 
cance. We feel again, as men felt in the primitive age, 
that what Christ gave was not a creed or a system but a 
regenerating spirit. 

... Above all, the figure of Jesus Himself stands out 
all the more grandly as the mists of theological specula- 
tion are blown away from Him, and we come to discern 
Him as He really sojourned on earth. It is not too much 
to say that by recovering for us the historic life of Jesus 
criticism has brought Christianity back to the true 
source of its power. The creeds, whatever may have 
been their value formerly, have broken down, but Jesus 
as we know Him in His life, and all the more as the life 
is freed from accretions of legend, still commands the 
world’s reverence and devotion. ‘The theology of the 
future, it is not rash to prophesy, will start from the inter- 
pretation of Jesus as a man in history. 

Finally, the modern enquiry has made it possible for 
us to think of Christianity as a living revelation. Ac- 
cording to the old view the mind of the Spirit was com- 
municated once for all in the New Testament, so that 
henceforth the church had no other duty than to guard 
the deposit of truth. This assumption, more than any- 
thing else, has weighed like a burden on Christianity. 
Ever and again great enterprises for human welfare have 
been arrested, because the New Testament said nothing 
of them, or seemed to discountenance them. Advances in 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 227 


knowledge have been condemned because they lay be- 
yond the horizon of New Testament thought. It is one 
of the ironies of history that the names of the great 
pioneers and liberators have always been used, in a later 
age, as watch-words of reaction; and this perversion has 
never been so manifest as in the case of the New Testa- 
ment. It owed its very existence to an impulse of prog- 
ress. As they encountered ever new conditions the 
Missionaries sought to bring their Gospel into harmony 
with them. The aid of Greek speculation was called in 
to interpret the work of Jesus to the Gentiles; the de- 
mands He had laid down were applied in new directions 
to meet the difficulties which could not present themselves 
in Galilee or Jerusalem. No forward movement has ever 
been so bold and rapid as that which transformed a little 
Jewish sect into the church of a great empire, made up of 
diverse races which had been nurtured in heathenism. It 
is surely illogical to acclaim the New Testament writers 
as the men who understood Christianity best, and in the 
same breath to denounce the very principles they worked 
on.... The modern enquiry has rendered the church 
a vital service by impressing on it that the faith which 
cramps itself within a fixed tradition is not the faith of 
the New Testament. Christianity, as we know it from 
the earliest records, kept pace with the movement of life. 
It was at once the truth proclaimed by Jesus and the 
truth which unfolded itself through the operation of His 
living spirit. More than once in the course of its history 
our religion has been saved by a return to the New Testa- 
inent, and this, we may dare to anticipate, will happen 
again. The ancient book, which seemed to bind us to an 
outworn past, has become our charter of liberty. We are 
loyal to it most when we answer its call to go forward, 
and to re-fashion its teaching by the larger light of this 
new time. 





Part IIT 


SCIENCE AND RELIGION; 
EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE 


ALAL. vOMBIDe 


TEA WOrre va 





A. THE ARGUMENT AGAINST 
EVOLUTION 


WEA ABOUT EVOLUTION: 
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE RELATION, OF 
EVOLUTION TO. THE BIBLE AND 
CHRISTIANITY 


It is sometimes said that Christianity has suffered 
much from not accepting the modern scientific doctrine 
of evolution. Do those who speak in this way really 
know what evolution means? Could they define it? 
Could they tell in what way it has been modified since 
the time of Darwin? There is no little ignorance on the 
subject, and it is worth while to consider what is to be 
understood by the term. 

A. statement recently reported as made by an Amer- 
ican clergyman represents the views of many on evolu- 
tion: “There is no escape for intelligent people today 
from the acceptance of the law of evolution. This law 
may be stated briefly to be that life on this planet, includ- 
ing man, has developed from the lower to higher types. 
Thus, man has gradually developed from some lower 
form of animal life. And man in his highest estate has 
through infinite years developed from man in his say- 
age state.” It is clear from such an utterance that this 
minister has accepted the idea of evolution without giv- 
ing it that careful attention which is necessary in the 
case of so vital and important a question. It is an illus- 
tration of how easy it is to accept a position which hap- 
pens to be current, without subjecting it to proper exam- 
ination. 


1By W. H. Griffith Thomas, D.D., Wycliffe College, Toronto. Copy: 
right (1918), The Bible Institute Colportage Association, Chicago, Illinois. 
Reprinted by permission. 


232 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Evolution may mean little or a great deal. The term 
is often misused. Sometimes it is employed quite gener- 
ally to indicate a change brought about by some force, 
whether internal or external. But the strictly scientific 
meaning is, a change wrought by internal force without 
external aid or volition. It would be well if this strictly 
correct meaning could always be understood by the use 
of the term. 

The ordinary reader need have no difficulty in under- 
standing that it is usual to divide the subject into sub- 
organic, organic, and stiper-organic. ‘The first refers to 
the development of matter without life, and is applied to 
the formation of the solar system from some cruder con- 
ditions of matter. Organic evolution is intended to de- 
scribe a process of derivation or development of vege- 
table and animal life. Super-organic evolution refers to 
the same principle in metaphysical and non-material 
spheres. 


ORGANIC EvoLUTION 


But let us now think simply of organic evolution. 
Even here, there is scarcely anything that needs more 
careful definition because of the wide divergence of opin- 
ion as to the use of the term. It is sometimes applied to 
the ordinary growth of a vegetable from a seed, or of a 
chicken from an egg. It is also used to denote a gradual 
development, made without any outside interference, but 
by means of residential forces, of some primordial germ 
into all the varied forms of life now existent. Further, 
it is sometimes thought of as causal, that is, as the cause 
of all life; and sometimes as modal, that is, as the method 
by which a personal Creator has s brought about the varied 
forms of life. The latter is, of course, the only possible — 
way of using the term in a Theistic and Christian sense. 

But now comes the question as to evolution’s real 
meaning as a method of the Creator’s work. According 
to Huxley, life originated in a low form of matter, which 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 233 


passed into higher forms by a constant succession of 
transmutations of species, until at length mankind was 
reached. On this hypothesis it is necessary to ask 
whether all life sprang from one cell, or from two, one 
for vegetable and one for animal? And if two, why not 
more? This question has to be settled by evidence. The 
earliest vegetable form known is that of the algze or sea- 
weeds, and yet during vast ages that species has remained 
essentially unchanged and abounds today in the same 
form. In commenting on this fact, Albert L. Gridley, in 
the chapter on modal evolution in his book, Genesis the 
Foundation for Science and Religion, keenly asks: “Ti 
some alge parents begat alge offspring, so to speak, and 
have continued to do so throughout the ages, is it prob- 
able that other alge parents begat offspring of some other 
species and these begat other species still, and so the 
thousands of fossil and living plants have been pro- 
duced °” 


TRANSMUTATION OF SPECIES 


But the curious thing is that, in spite of all the scien- 
tific research and discussion, there is no proof whatever 
of anything lke a change or transmutation of species. 
Species today are practically what they have been for 
ages; there is no trace of one ever crossing over to an- 
other. Dr. Etheridge, the superintendent of the Depart- 
ment of Natural History in the British Museum, has de- 
clared; “In all this great museum there is not a particle 
of evidence of transmutation of species. Nine-tenths of 
the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on 
observation and wholly unsupported by fact. They adopt 
a theory and then strain their facts to support it.”’ To the 
same effect are the words of De Cyon, the Russian scien- 
tist, in his book God and Science, who says: “Tvolution 
is pure assumption.” 

It is to be noted, also, that while regular, orderly prog- 
ress is necessary to any theory of evolution, it is no evi- 


234 SELECTED ARTICLES 


dence of even modal evolution, nor of a development 
from within of any kind. This is quite as true in a na- 
tural history museum as it is in an automobile show. 
Skeletons of creatures from the lowest monkey to the 
highest type of man himself may be arranged in exact 
order. So may automobiles, from the first rude and 
crude and grotesque models of twenty years ago to the 
most artistic landaulet of today. But there is no modal 
evolution here: no germ in one automobile has produced 
the next better by forces within, through natural selec- 
tion, in any sense whatever. There has been nothing 
more than a suggestion of some change that might be 
made for the better, and this suggestion was in a mind 
without, and the change came wholly from that mind 
without, and through a new creative act. 

Some time ago an article appeared on “The Evolution 
of the Jackknife,” and reference was made to the devel- 
opment from the rudest flint to the latest steel blade, but 
a moment’s thought should have prevented the use of the 
term “evolution,” because it is obvious that the flint _did 
not produce another and higher type and so on stage by 
stage up to the steel knife. All the “evolution” was in the 
mind of man. To the same effect is the inaccurate phrase, 
“the evolution of the English Bible.’ Such orderly prog- 
ress proves no more than this: each step in the progress 
may have come about only through a suggestion in a mind 
without, and been produced by a creative act from 
without. 


MopIFICATION OF DARWINISM 


It is well known that the theory of evolution as put 
forth by Darwin has become seriously, even profoundly, 
modified by more recent research. One of the ablest evo- 
lutionists today is Professor Henslow, formerly president 
of the British Association, and in his book, Modern Ra- 
tionalism Critically Examined, he shows that Darwinian 
natural selection is absolutely inadequate to account for 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 235 


existing facts, and that the additional principle of direc- 
tivity must be adduced. Those who wish to see how re- 
markable has been the change in the views of scientific 
men on evolution should read Naturalism and Religion 
by Otto, which is available in an English translation; or 
else the treatment of the subject in God’s Image in Man 
by Dr. James Orr. Professor Bateson, who gave the 
Presidential Address at the meeting of the British Asso- 
ciation for the Advancement of Science, in 1914, bore 
striking testimony to the modifications made by recent 
science in connection with the Darwinian theory. This is 
what he said among other things: “The principle of na- 
tural selection cannot have been the chief factor in de- 
limiting the species of animals and plants. We go to 
Darwin for his incomparable collection of facts. We 
would fain emulate his scholarship, his width and his 
power of exposition, but to us he speaks no more with 
philosophical authority. We have done with the notion 
that Darwin came latterly to favor, that large differences 
can arise by accumulation of small differences.” 


QUESTIONS FOR EVOLUTIONISTS 


Those who are inclined without due knowledge of the 
facts of the case to accept what they call the modern doc- 
trine of evolution may be asked to answer these ques- 
tions : 

(1) How is it that life has never yet been produced 
from that which is non-living? Professor Tyndall, twen- 
ty-five years ago, said that in dead matter there is the 
promise and potency of life, and people actually believed 
it. But there was not an atom of truth in it, for in dead 
matter there is the promise and potency of decomposi- 
tion, putrefaction, and disintegration. And now science, 
as represented by the president of the British Association, 
is foremost in acknowledging that there never has been 
any spontaneous generation. This gulf between the liv- 


236 SELECTED ARTICLES 


ing and the non-living must be spanned before evolution 
can be anything more than a hypothesis. 

(2) How is it that embryonic, immature life has no 
power to reproduce itself? Eggs never hatch eggs; 
apples never bear apples. Immature life is absolutely 
unreproductive, and there is no reproduction without 
maturity. 

(3) How is it that embryonic life is also unimprov- 
able? You cannot improve the embryo by working on it. 
We can only improve the quality of eggs by making a 
better quality of hen. To try to improve any kind of 
embryonic life is to endanger its existence. 

(4) How is it that embryonic, immature life is also 
incapable of preservation? Almost anything will crush 
it out of existence. A scientist not long ago admitted that 
if embryonic life had come into the earth’s chaotic state, 
it certainly would have been destroyed. If these things 
are true of embryonic life today, what evidence have we 
that they were not always true? And in this case, how 
could evolution from embryonic life have begun? 

(5) How is it that Darwin’s doctrine of natural se- 
lection still remains only a hypothesis and has never been 
absolutely established? There are two or three million of 
species on earth, and, according to Dr. N. S. Shaler, Pro- 
fessor of Geology, Harvard, it has not yet been proved 
that a single species has been established solely or even 
mainly by the operation of natural selection. Even Dar- 
win himself said: “We cannot prove that a single species 
has changed” (Life and Letters. Vol. III, p 25). And 
Professor Huxley wrote: “Our acceptance of the Dar- 
-winian hypothesis must be provisional so long as one link 
“in the chain of evidence is wanting.” Professor Fleisch- 
mann, of Erlangen, has gone as far as to say that “the. 
Darwinian theory of descent has, in the realms of nature, 
not a single fact to confirm it.’”’ Now in view of all the 
years and centuries which have been known, it is at least 
curious that not a trace of natural selection can be found. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 237 


It would seem as though the strong criticism of Profes- 
sor Henslow in the book referred to above is right. 

(6) How is it that evolution fails to explain man’s 
appearance on the earth? Whatever date may be assigned 
to this, there is a gap between the highest animal and man 
which has never yet been accounted for by evolution. 
The fact that scientific opinion as to the age of the hu- 
man race is in such pronounced disagreement seems to 
suggest that, at any rate, up to the present, there is no re- 
liable evidence on which to form a definite opinion. Hu- 
man remains and relics have not yet yielded any con- 
clusive testimony. 

(7) On the theory of evolution how is the steriliza- 
tion of hybrids to be explained? The fact that both ani- 
nals and plants come to a sudden stop and do not pro- 
duce offspring under certain circumstances is a scientific 
fact that calls for thorough explanation, and on the theory 
of a gradual evolution there is no reason why this stop 
should ever come. 

All this and much more that could be cited suggests 
the importance and necessity of clearness in regard to 
evolution. Those who are enamoured of everything mod- 
ern and want to be “up-to-date” should really give full 
attention to the facts in the case, and think out their posi- 
tion without too hastily adopting the last view of modern 
thought. : 


EVOLUTION AND MATERIALISM 


And it is well for those who think the church has been 
unduly suspicious of the theory of evolution and very 
slow in using it, to be reminded that there is ample 
ground for the suspicion. Evolution was proclaimed to 
the world, not merely as a scientific theory, but as an 
ally of a philosophy which, by its materialism, boasted 
that it would be capable of driving Christianity out of 
existence. Surely the church could hardly be expected 
to welcome a theory which was put forth under these 


238 SELECTED ARTICLES 


auspices; and it is not surprising that the memory of this 
early time abides. People in the present day hardly real- 
ize the exultation with which the doctrine of evolution 
was hailed as the explanation of the universe and as a 
supreme proof of human knowledge and inquiry. It 
seemed to settle everything, for it was thought by many 
to be the solution of all the problems of life. 

That this is not an incorrect, still less a biased state- 
ment, may be seen from the words of Professor Henry 
Fairfield Osborn in his recent book, The Origin and Ev- 
olution of Life, where he says: 


In truth, from the period of the earliest stages of Greek 
thought man has been eager to discover some natural cause of 
evolution, and to abandon the idea of supernatural intervention 
in the order of nature. 


But it was not long before men of science, as well as 
men in the church, found that evolution did not yield the 
desired and expected results, and when a scientist, like 
Huxley, endeavored to explain the universe in the light of 
this principle he was compelled to settle down into ag- 
nosticism, while Herbert Spencer went further by saying, 
not only that he did not know, but illogically maintaining 
that it was impossible to know. And now that, fifty years 
afterward, agnosticism is no longer the fashionable at- 
titude of earlier days, the explanation of evolution is as 
far off as ever, because science realizes that the universe 
is infinitely more complex than it had formerly considered 
it to be. Here again the words of Professor Osborn may 
be adduced: 


Between the appearance of The Origin of Species in 1859 
and the present time, there have been great waves of faith in 
one explanation and then in another; each of these waves of 
confidence has ended in disappointment, until finally we have 
reached a stage of very general scepticism. Thus the long 
period of observation, experiment and reasoning which began 
with the French philosopher, Buffon, one hundred and fifty years 
ago ends in 1916 with the general feeling that our search for 
causes, far from being near completion, has only just begun. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 239 


EVOLUTION OPPOSED BY SCIENTISTS 


But opposition to evolution was by no means confined 
to the church and based on religious reasons; men of 
high position in the scientific world were equally opposed 
to it on scientific grounds. No one can deny either the 
opposition or the knowledge of Virchow, the great path- 
ologist, who spoke in the strongest terms against the view 
of man being evolved from the ape. Indeed, he said all 
real knowledge goes in an opposite direction and, as we 
shall presently see, there have been recent illustrations of 
this striking statement. Sir William Dawson, of Mon- 
treal, the eminent geologist, said that the evolution doc- 
trine is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity, a 
system destitute of any shadow of proof (Story of the 
Earth and Man. p. 317.) Even Professor Tyndall in an 
article in the Fortnightly Review said: 

There ought to be a clear distinction made between science 
in the state of hypothesis and science in the state of fact. And 
inasmuch as it is still in its hypothetical stage the ban of ex- 
clusion ought to fall upon the theory of evolution. I agree with 


Virchow that the proofs of it are still wanting, that the failures 
have been lamentable, that the doctrine is utterly discredited. 


Many recent scientific statements in support of this 
contention are available, but perhaps one will suffice, 
made by the well known German scientist, Haeckel. He 
is frank to admit that he stands almost alone, and then 
says “Most modern investigators of science have come to 
the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution, and particu- 
larly Darwinism, is an error and cannot be maintained.” 


THEISTIC EVOLUTION 


There are, it is true, men like Professor Drummond, 
Dr. McCosh, and many more who see no reason why, if 
the doctrine of evolution is proved, it should not be re- 
garded as thoroughly in harmony with Theism and 
Christianity. But it must be confessed that this is in great 


240 SELECTED ARTICLES 


measure merely the retention of the name of evolution 
and an entirely new interpretation of it. If by “Theis- 
tic’ evolution is meant God’s way of working, it is, of 
course, absolutely true, but the question is whether this 
would be accepted by most of the scientists who teach 
the idea of evolution as the great principle of nature. 
Theism and evolution may be made correlative terms, but 
as a rule, they are regarded as contradictory, for evolu- 
tion is generally so well defined that its fundamental idea 
is at least deistic, if not a-theistic, and to empty a word 
of its usual meaning and make it something different is 
at least confusing and is hardly likely to be generally 
adopted. 

But even from this viewpoint of harmony with revela- 
tion, evolution should not be regarded at present as an as- 
sured result, but only as a working hypothesis of science. 
Those who are apt, on insufficient grounds, to rush to the 
conclusion that everything modern is right, and that most 
ancient things, especially in the Bible, are wrong should 
give themselves a little more study, both of the modern 
and the ancient facts of the case. 

From time to time statements are heard to the effect 
that it is impossible to reconcile Genesis with science. 
Perhaps a little more knowledge of what Genesis actually 
contains, and a little more information about the real 
facts of science, might lead to another conclusion. 

On one hypothesis there is no doubt that Genesis and 
evolution are irreconcilable, namely, the belief that evolu- 
tion is causal, thereby ruling out a belief in a first cause. 
If we admit that the solar system has always existed, it 
would, of course, be necessary to believe in the eternity of 
matter. But nothing in the universe more clearly points 
to a beginning than the solar system; and great scientists, 
like Lord Kelvin and Sir Oliver Lodge, are quite definite 
in their conviction that only by means of a first cause can 
we account for things as they are. Even Herbert Spen- 
cer is compelled to speak of an infinite and unknowable 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 241 


energy from which all things proceed, thereby admitting 
a first cause, and at the same time revealing his own in- 
consistency in asserting it to be “unknowable.” Un- 
known to him, if he likes, but to say it is “unknowable” 
begs the question. Besides, it is no mere verbal juggling 
that shows the impossibility of agnosticism by asking, 
“How do you know that you do not know?” Whatever 
may be the precise method by which present arrange- 
ments have come to be, orderly succession suggests cause 
and effect, and this, in turn, implies and demands an in- 
telligent and infinite first cause. So we may dismiss this 
idea of causal evolution, because it is plainly anti-theistic. 


EVoLuTIoN AS A METHOD 


The other view regards evolution as modal: that is, as 
the method employed by God to produce the world and 
all that is in it. On this assumption evolution cannot get 
farther back than the condition of things mentioned or 
implied in the second verse of Genesis, which has been 
likened to the well known nebular hypothesis. This as- 
sumes a mass of nebulous matter revolving with velocity 
and throwing off rings which form the planetary system. 
But even this is now being set aside by science for the 
new theory of the origin of matter through electrons. 
The modification of the nebular hypothesis, which is still 
being discussed by scientists, shows that until science can 
give a clear proof of the origin of matter, those who 
predicate a first cause as the only adequate explanation 
have still a good deal to say for themselves. 

Science, on either view, does not explain in the slight- 
est degree how these things came to be. For this we must 
go farther back still and concentrate attention on verse 1, 
which teaches that the universe was not self-originated, 
but was due to a first cause. Once this is granted, it can — 
be seen that there is no contradiction between Genesis 
and science. No scientific error has yet been proved to 
exist in Genesis, and its language is sufficiently flexible to 


242 SELECTED ARTICLES 


allow of agreement with modern discoveries. If Genesis 
had been written in strict scientific language, it would 
have been unintelligible for centuries. Consider some of 
the points in which Genesis worthily illustrates the best 
modern knowledge. 


GENESIS AND SCIENCE 


There is one word for the act of creation as distinct 
from that of making or.moulding from materials, and it 
is significant that this word occurs three times only, and 
in connection with the three spheres of matter (Gen. I: 
1); of life (v: 21); and of man (v: 27). When it is re- 
membered that Mr. Alfred Russell Wallace, who shared 
with Darwin the distinction of pioneer in the modern ev- 
olution theory, maintains that there must have been three 
interpositions of a divine and supernatural power to ac- 
count for things as they now are, the agreement or at 
least the coincidence of science with Genesis is surely 
very striking. There is a gulf between matter and noth- 
ing; another between life and the non-living; and a third 
between man and the lower creation, and science cannot 
bridge any of them. 

Then again the first chapter of Genesis has the same 
order of events, as may be seen in scientific records to- 
day. Comparative anatomy tells us that the types of life 
go up from the lowest to the highest, and are determined 
by the proportion of the amount of the brain to the spinal 
cord, the order being fish, reptiles, birds, mammals, man. 
This is exactly the order of Genesis. It would be inter- 
esting to know how the author of that chapter came to 
be familiar with facts which were only discovered by 
science just over two centuries ago. 

Further, the chapter is clearly marked by indications 
of development, progress, and change in harmony with 
much modern teaching on evolution; and it has also 
points of contact with biological and anthropological 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 243 


teaching about man’s nature. Man is seen to be at once 
united with nature and yet separate from it. This unity 
of animate and inanimate nature is exactly in accordance 
with scientific thought. Even a materialistic scientist like 
Haeckel bears his testimony to this remarkable fact, and 
the late Professor Romanes and others speak in the 
warmest terms of the way in which Genesis has antici- 
pated the order of events as recorded by science. Their 
very words are useful. Haeckel admits that “two great 
and fundamental ideas, common also to the non-miracu- 
lous, meet us in the Mosaic hypothesis of creation with 
surprising clearness and simplicity—the idea of separa- 
tion or differentiation and the idea of progressive devel- 
opment or perfecting. ... In this theory there lies hid- 
den the ruling idea of a progressive development and 
differentiation of the originally simple matter. We can, 
therefore, bestow our just and sincere admiration of the 
Jewish law-giver’s grand insight into nature’ (quoted by 
McCosh, The Religious Aspect of Evolution. p. 99, 
100). And Professor Romanes says that “the order in 
which the flora and fauna are said by the Mosaic account 
to have appeared upon the earth corresponds with that 
which the theory of evolution requires and the evidence 
of geology proves” (quoted in McCosh. p. 99). 

It is, therefore, marvellous that, although, naturally, 
not setting down scientific truths in scientific phraseology, 
the writer of Genesis was prevented from setting down 
anything inconsistent with scientific results. The oldest 
book in the possession of man has wonderfully antici- 
pated some of the latest discoveries of science. Of 
course, it is necessary to distinguish carefully between 
geology and Genesis, the one being for students and the 
other for all men; the one being concerned with science, 
the other with religion. And yet there are striking anal- 
ogies between them, as, for example, the fact that the 
material universe had a beginning and is not eternal; 
that light was in existence before the appearance of the 


244 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Sun and moon; that the earth was once covered with wa- 
ter; that vegetation preceded animal life; and that man 
only came when the earth was ready. It is also striking 
that many leading geologists, like Buckland, Miller, Dana, 
Dawson, Hitchcock, and others, have expressed the opin- 
ion that geology is in harmony with the account of crea- 
tion in Genesis. 


GENESIS AND ANTHROPOLOGY 


In particular, the question of man is important as 
showing that there is no contradiction between Genesis 
and science. Anthropology, like Genesis, bears witness 
to man’s complex nature, implying a complex origin. 
Physiology is not adequate to account for him; psychol- 
ogy must be predicated as well. The memory alone is a 
proof that both elements are required, physical and men- 
tal. The brain is at once physical and the seat 
of the faculty of recollection, and so, when the brain 
is injured, memory, too suffers. Yet no one can explain 
how the physical matter of the brain is connected with 
the non-physical element of memory. Then, too, as 
pointed out already, the origin of species by favorable 
variations is not the entire explanation, for, as Sir Oliver 
Lodge rightly asks, ‘““How is the appearance of these fav- 
orable variations to be accounted for?’ He goes on to 
say that it can only be by artificial selection. Given their 
appearance, their development can be explained; but that 
they arose spontaneously is an assumption which cannot 
be made. Here are the exact words of the great scientist: 
“Does anyone think that the skill of the beaver, the in- 
stinct of the bee, the genius of a man, arose by chance, 
and that its presence is accounted for by anything done 
and by survival? What struggle for existence will ex- 
plain the advent of a Beethoven? What doubtful in- 
stinct for earning a living as a dramatist will educe for 
us a Shakespeare? These things are beyond science of 
the orthodox type. Then let us be silent, and let it deny 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 245 


nothing in the universe until it has at least made an hon- 
est attempt to grasp the whole.” (Hibbert Journal. Vol. 
herp Lo i . 

How, also, are we to account by evolution for these 
things in man: (a) The fact of mind; (b) the fact of 
language ; (c) the fact of conscience? Evolutionists may 
be safely challenged to explain any of these by the pro- 
cess of development. It is simply impossible to express 
personality in terms of evolution, for there are facts out- 
side it, and also several gaps, which prevent it from being 
regarded as an inductive science. 


SCIENCE AND THE FALL 


It is sometimes said that science has no trace of the 
fall. This is probably true in regard to physical science, 
because we have no right to expect it there. But there 
are other branches of science as well which call for equal 
consideration. Thus, there is the testimony of moral 
philosophy or, as it may be called, psychology. What 
are we to say of man’s conscience which clearly testifies 
to the fundamental distinction between right and wrong? 
Nothing in evolution can explain conscience or say how 
man has come to a consciousness of guilt as the result of 
wrong-doing. If it be alleged that conscience has been 
developed by education, the answer is that many tribes of 
savages have more enlightened consciences than some 
educated and cultivated men. The savages show the 
work of law written on their hearts, and the idea of de- 
veloping conscience from the lower animals is unthink- 
able and really absurd, for no one ever associates a con- 
science with a dog, a tiger or a shark. 

Most important of all is the problem of Christ, with 
the absolute impossibility of accounting for Him by any 
theory of evolution. As we ponder His personal char- 
acter of sinlessness, His claim to represent and express 
Deity, the element of the supernatural in His life, and, 
not least of all, His remarkable influence throughout the 


246 SELECTED ARTICLES 


ages, we fail to find any explanation in evolution. This 
means that on the assumption of a divine revelation or a 
divine incarnation, evolution becomes necessarily dis- 
proved. 

MAN AND THE APE 


Two curious illustrations of the fluctuating state of 
scientific opinion have recently been given. At the meet- 
ing of the American Association for the Advancement of 
Science, held in New York city in December, 1916, the 
question of man’s relationship to the ape was considered, 
with special reference to the question of “the missing 
link.” A notable change of view was expressed, and the 
problem was raised whether the ape is related to man by 
ascent or descent. One of the most recent authoritative 
publications by a German anthropologist urges that ‘the 
apes are to be regarded as degenerate branches of the 
pre-human stock.” This means in a word that “man is 
not descended from the ape, but the ape from the man.” 
This is almost what may be called a reductio ad absur- 
dum, and yet it is one of the latest pronouncements of 
scientific thought (Editorial in New York Herald. De- 
cember 30, 1916). 

To the same effect are the words of Professor Wood- 
Jones, Professor of Anatomy in the University of Lon- 
don, England, who recently pointed out that so far from 
man having descended from anthropoid apes, it would be 
more accurate to say that these have been descended 
from man. This was claimed not only by reason of the 
best anatomical research, but to be deducible from the 
whole trend of geological and anthropological discovery. 
On this account Professor Wood-Jones appealed for 
an entire reconsideration of the post-Darwinian concep- 
tions of man’s comparatively recent emergence from the 
brute kingdom, asserting that the missing link, if ever 
found, would not be a more ape-like man, but a more 
human ape, 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 247 


EvoLUTION AND CATASTROPHE 


Another difficulty arises in connection with what is 
now known as evolution “by leaps.’”’ When the doc- 
trine of evolution first became popular, it was thought to 
express a gradual, regular, and unbroken process in 
which the previous condition always accounted for the 
present condition. All suggestions of special creations, 
sudden breaks, and interruptions, and great changes were 
considered impossible. Yet it now appears that this ear- 
lier view is altogether inadequate, for evolution proceeds 
by “leaps” as well as by slow processes, and the well- 
known French writer, Bergson, is actually able to write 
these words: “Apart from the question to what extent the 
theory of evolution describes the facts and to what ex- 
tent it symbolizes them, there is nothing in it that is ir- 
reconcilabie with the doctrines it has aimed to replace, 
even with that of special creations, to which it is usually 
opposed” (Creative Evolution. p. 27, English edition). 

No one can deny the facts of catastrophe, convulsion 
and irruption in nature, and certainly evolution is unable 
to set aside these realities. And so it is clear that science 
cannot explain creation; at best it can only describe a 
process. The initiative which produces variation is still 
a mystery to science, and whatever immanent movements 
there may be, the need of a transcendent factor is as 
PoReauasacvecr, 

From all this it is obvious that the theory of evolution 
is still a hypothesis which we have a perfect right to 
question until facts are forthcoming to transform the hy- 
pothesis into scientific truth. 


EvoLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN 


It is, therefore, high time that the whole truth be 
known in order that those who fear the authority of Gen- 
esis is destroyed may be reassured. Let it be remem- 
bered that evolution is not an explanation. It does not 


248 SELECTED GAR CIGLES 


say anything as to how the primal impulse arose from 
which the whole movement proceeds. It does not explain 
the upward tendency of things. It does not explain the 
particular forms and laws in the universe. It cannot 
bridge the gulf between mind and matter. All these have 
to be taken for granted at the start; and from the stand- 
point of evolution, agnosticism is the only position in re- 
gard to them, for they are unknown and apparently un- 
knowable. They may be described, but cannot be ac- 
counted for. Evolution may attempt to describe; only 
Theism can explain. 

It is well known that if any single cell of life, in plant, 
insect, or animal, cannot take in from without, the issue 
is death. There is no such thing as development merely 
from within, for development is also dependent on appro- 
priation of force from without. If nothing is taken in 
from without, there is no development from within, and 
it is this that Genesis specifically teaches. The truth 1s 
that so many seem content to take evolution for granted, 
as though it were absolutely assured beyond all possi- 
bility of question. Yet those who take this line are, as 
already seen, opposed to some of the plainest scientific 
facts, and they can only be regarded as adopting the sci- 
ence at second-hand without proper inquiry. 

Thus, in spite of all the brilliant discoveries of science, 
the plain fact abides that we must come back to the Old 
Book for an explanation of the origin of life. Let those, 
then, who have been perturbed by any utterance on this 
subject possess their souls in patience, and remember that 
not every statement found in the papers is necessarily 
true, especially when it has to do with religion. There 
is no need to apologize for the first chapter of Genesis, no 
need to be disconcerted when anyone declaims against it. 


PRESENT CONCLUSIONS OF SCIENCE 


This is how a scientist puts the case in a summary of 
the facts in five departments of knowledge as they are 
now known: | 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 249 


(1) Both matter and energy seem now to be at a 
standstill, so far as creation is concerned, no means being 
known to science whereby the fixed quantity of both with 
which we have to deal in this world can be increased (or 
diminished) in the slightest degree. 

(2) The origin of life is veiled in a mist that science 
has not dispelled and does not hope to dispel. By none of 
the processes that we call natural can life now be pro- 
duced from the not-living. 

-(3) Unicellular forms can come only from pre- 
existing cells of the same kind; and even the individual 
cells of a multicellular organism, when once differenti- 
ated, reproduce only other cells after their own kind. 

(4) Species of plants and animals have wonderful 
powers of variation; but these variations seem to be reg- 
ulated and predestined in accordance with definite laws, 
and in no instance known to science has this variation re- 
sulted in producing what could properly be called a dis- 
tinct new kind of plant or animal. 

(5) Geology has been supposed to prove that there 
has been a long succession of distinct types of life on the 
globe in a very definite order extending through vast 
ages of time. This is now known to be a mistake. Most 
living forms of plants and animals are found as fossils; 
but there is no possible way of telling that one kind of 
life lived and occupied the world before others, or that 
one kind of life is intrinsically older than any other or 
than the human race. (Q.E.D. by Professor G. M. Price. 
pat Zoi) 

All this shows the force of some recent words spoken 
at a meeting of scientists in Philadelphia by Dr. T. H. 
Morgan, Professor of Science in Columbia University, 
who said that colleges have been spending too much time 
trying to teach evolution and added: 


It is time to call a halt. We have been standing on a belief 
founded on comparative anatomy, and a belief not very well 
founded at that. The teacher has followed this method, be- 
cause it is the easiest way to teach comparative anatomy. Be- 


280 SELECTED ARTICLES 


fore long the student will find out that we are giving him the 
same old stuff over and over again. 


MR. BRYAN ON EVOLUTION’ 


I appreciate your invitation to present the objections 
to Darwinism, or evolution applied to man, and beg to 
submit to your readers the following: 

The only part of evolution in which any considerable 
interest is felt is evolution applied to man. A hypothe- 
sis in regard to the rocks and plant life does not affect 
the philosophy upon which one’s life is built. Evolution 
applied to fish, birds and beasts would not materially 
affect man’s view of his own responsibilities except as the 
acceptance of an unsupported hypothesis as to these 
would be used to support a similar hypothesis as to man. 
The evolution that is harmful—distinctly so—is the ev- 
olution that destroys man’s family tree as taught by the 
Bible and makes him a descendant of the lower forms of 
life. This, as I shall try to show, is a very vital matter. 

I deal with Darwinism because it is a definite hypothe- 
sis. In his “Descent of Man” and “Origin of Species” 
Darwin has presumed to outline a family tree that begins, 
according to his estimate, about two hundred million 
years ago with marine animals. He attempts to trace 
man’s line of descent from this obscure beginning up 
through fish, reptile, bird and animal to man. He has 
us descend from European, rather than American, apes 
and locates our first ancestors in Africa. Then he says, 
“But why speculate ’’—a very significant phrase because 
it applies to everything that he says. His entire discus- 
sion is speculation. 


DARWIN'S “Laws” 


Darwin set forth two (so-called) laws by which he 
attempts to explain the changes which he thought had 


1From New York Times. Sunday, February 26, 1922. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 251 


taken place in the development of life from the earlier 
forms to man. One of these is called “natural selection” 
cr “survival of the fittest,” his argument being that a 
form of life which had any characteristic that was bene- 
ficial had a better chance of survival than a form of life 
that lacked that characteristic. The second law that he 
assumed to declare was called “sexual selection,” by 
which he attempted to account for every change that was 
not accounted for by natural selection. Sexual selection 
has been laughed out of the class room. Even in his day 
Darwin said (see note to “Descent of Man” 1874 edition, 
page 625) that it aroused more criticism than anything 
else he had said, when he used sexual selection to explain 
how man became a hairless animal. Natural selection is 
being increasingly discarded by scientists. John Bur- 
roughs just before his death, registered a protest against 
it. But many evolutionists adhere to Darwin’s conclu- 
sions while discarding his explanations. In other words, 
they accept the line of descent which he suggested with- 
out any explanation whatever to support it. 

Other scientists accept the family tree which he out- 
lined, but would have man branch off at a point 
below, or above, the development of apes and monkeys 
instead of coming through them. So far as I have been 
able to find, Darwin’s line of descent has more supporters 
than any other outlined by evolutionists. If there is any 
other clearly defined family tree supported by a larger 
number of evolutionists, I shall be glad to have informa- 
tion about it that I may investigate it. 

The first objection to Darwinism is that it is only a 
guess and was never anything more. It is called a 
“hypothesis,” but the word “hypothesis,” though euphon- 
ious, dignified and high-sounding, is merely a scientific 
synonym for the old-fashioned word “guess.” If Darwin 
had advanced his views as a guess they would not have 
survived for a year, but they have floated for a half a 
century, buoyed up by the inflated word “hypothesis.” 


252 SELECTED ARTICLES 


When it is understood that “hypothesis” means “guess,” 
people will inspect it more carefully before accepting it. 


No Support IN THE BIBLE 


The second objection to Darwin’s guess is that it has 
not one syllable in the Bible to support it. This ought to 
make Christians cautious about accepting it without 
thorough investigation. The Bible not only describes 
man’s creation, but gives a reason for it; man is a part 
of God’s plan and is placed on earth for a purpose. Both 
the Old and New Testament deal with man and with man 
only. They tell of God’s creation of him, of God’s deal- 
ings with him and of God’s plans for him. Is it not 
strange that a Christian will accept Darwinism as a sub- 
stitute for the Bible when the Bible not only does not sup- 
port Darwin’s hypothesis but directly and expressly con- 
tradicts it? 

Third—Neither Darwin nor his supporters have been 
able to find a fact in the universe to support their hypoth- 
esis. With millions of species, the investigators have 
not been able to find one single instance in which one 
species has changed into another, although, according to 
the hypothesis, all species have developed from one or a 
few germs of life, the development being through the 
action of “resident forces” and without outside aid. 
Wherever a form of life, found in the rocks, is found 
among living organisms, there is no material change from 
the earliest form in which it is found. With millions of 
examples, nothing imperfect is found—nothing in the 
process of change. This statement may surprise those 
who have accepted evolution without investigation, as 
most of those who call themselves evolutionists have 
done. One preacher who wrote to me expressing great 
regret that I should dissent from Darwin said that he 
had not investigated the matter for himself, but that 
nearly all scientists seemed to accept Darwinism. 

The latest word that we have on this subject comes 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 253 


from Professor Bateson, a high English authority, who 
journeyed all the way from London to Toronto, Canada, 
to address the American Association for the Advance- 
ment of Science the 28th day of last December. His 
speech has been published in full in the January issue of 
Science. 

Professor Bateson is an evolutionist, but he tells with 
real pathos how every effort to discover the origin of 
species has failed. He takes up different lines of inves- 
tigation, commenced hopefully but ending in disappoint- 
ment. He concludes by saying, “Let us then proclaim in 
precise and unmistakable language that our faith in ev- 
olution is unshaken,” and then he adds, “our doubts are 
not as to the reality or truth of evolution, but as to the 
origin of species, a technical, almost domestic problem. 
Any day that mystery may be solved.” Here is op- 
timism at its maximum. They fall back on faith. They 
have not yet found the origin of species, and yet how 
can evolution explain life unless it can account for change 
in species? Is it not more rational to believe in crea- 
tion of man by separate act of God than to believe in ev- 
olution without a particle of evidence? 

Fourth—Darwinism is not only without foundation, 
but it compels its believers to resort to explanations that 
are more absurd than anything found in the “Arabian 
Nights.” Darwin explains that man’s mind became su- 
perior to woman’s because, among our brute ancestors, 
the males fought for their females and thus strengthened 
their minds. If he had lived until now, he would not 
have felt it necessary to make so ridiculous an explana- 
tion, because woman’s mind is not now believed to be 
inferior to man’s. 


As To HairLess MEN 


Darwin also explained that the hair disappeared from 
the body, permitting man to become a hairless animal be- 
cause, among our brute ancestors, the females preferred 


254 SELECTED ARTICLES 


the males with the least hair and thus in the course of 
-ages, bred the hair off. It is hardly necessary to point 
out that these explanations conflict; the males and the 
females could not both select at the same time. 

Evolutionists, not being willing to accept the theory of 
creation, have to explain everything, and their courage in 
this respect is as great as their efforts are laughable. The 
eye, for instance, according to evolutionists, was brought 
out by “the light beating upon the skin;’ the ears came 
out in response to “air waves;” the leg is the development 
of a wart that chanced to appear on the belly of an ani- 
mal; and so the tommyrot runs on ad infinitum and sen- 
sible people are asked to swallow it. 

Recently a college professor told an audience in Phila- 
delphia that a baby wiggles its big toe without wiggling 
its other toes because its ancestors climbed trees; also 
that we dream of falling because our forefathers fell 
out of trees fifty thousand years ago, adding that we are 
not hurt in our dreams of falling because we descended 
from those that were not killed. (If we descended from 
animals at all, we certainly did not descend from those 
that were killed in falling). A professor in Illinois has 
fixed as the great day in history the day when a water 
puppy crawled upon the land and decided to stay there, 
thus becoming man’s first progenitor. A dispatch from 
Paris recently announced that an eminent scientist had 
reported having communicated with the soul of a dog 
and learned that the dog was happy. 

I simply mention these explanations to show what 
some people can believe who cannot believe the Bible. 
Evolution seems to close the heart of some to the plainest 
spiritual truths while it opens the mind to the wildest of 
guesses advanced in the name of science. 


GUESSING Is Not SCIENCE 


Guesses are not science. Science is classified knowl- 
edge, and a scientist ought to be the last person to insist 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 255 


upon a guess being accepted until proof removes it from 
the field of hypothesis into the field of demonstrated 
truth. Christianity has nothing to fear from any truth; 
no fact disturbs the Christian religion or the Christian. It 
is the unsupported guess that is substituted for science to 
which opposition is made, and I think the objection is a 
valid one. 

But, it may be asked, why should one object to Dar- 
winism even though it is not true? This is a proper ques- 
tion and deserves a candid answer. There are many 
guesses which are perfectly groundless and at the same 
time entirely harmless; and it is not worth while to worry 
about a guess or to disturb the guesser so long as his 
guess does not harm others. 

The objection to Darwinism is that it is harmful, as 
well as groundless. It entirely changes one’s view of 
life and undermines faith in the Bible. Evolution has no 
place for the miracle or the supernatural. It flatters the 
egotist to be told that there 1s nothing that his mind can- 
not understand. Evolution proposes to bring all the pro- 
cesses of nature within the comprehension of man by 
making it the explanation of everything that is known. 
Creation implies a Creator, and the finite mind cannot 
comprehend the infinite. We can understand some 
things, but we run across mystery at every point. Evolu- 
tion attempts to solve the mystery of life by suggesting 
a process of development commencing “in the dawn of 
time’ and continuing uninterrupted up until now. Ev- 
olution does not explain creation: it simply diverts at- 
tention from it by hiding it behind eons of time. Ifa man 
accepts Darwinism, or evolution applied to man, and 1s 
consistent, he rejects the miracle and the supernatural as 
impossible. He commences with the first chapter of 
Genesis and blots out the Bible story of man’s creation, 
not because the evidence is insufficient, but because the 
miracle is inconsistent with evolution. If he is consistent, 
he will go through the Old Testament step by step and 


256 SELECTED ARTICLES 


cut out all the miracles and all the supernatural. He will 
then take up the New Testament and cut out all the 
supernatural—the virgin birth of Christ, His miracles 
and His resurrection, leaving the Bible a story book with- 
out binding authority upon the conscience of man. Of 
course, not all evolutionists are consistent; some fail to 
apply their hypothesis to the end just as some Christians 
fail to apply their Christianity to life. 


EvoLUTION AND Gop 


Most of the evolutionists are materialists ; some admit- 
ting that they are atheists, others calling themselves ag- 
nostics. Some call themselves “theistic evolutionists,” 
but the theistic evolutionist puts God so far away that He 
ceases to be a present influence in the life. Canon Barnes 
of Westminster, some two years ago, interpreted evolu- 
tion as to put God back of the time when the electrons 
came out of “stuff” and combined (about 1740 of them) 
to form an atom. Since then, according to Canon Barnes, 
things have been developing to God’s plan but without 
God’s aid. 

It requires measureless credulity to enable one to be- 
lieve that all that we see about us came by chance, by a 
series of happy-go-lucky accidents. If only an infinite 
God could have formed hydrogen and oxygen and united 
them in just the right proportions to produce water—the 
daily need of every living thing—scattered among the 
flowers all the colors of the rainbow and every variety 
of perfume, adjusted the mocking bird’s throat to its 
musical scale, and fashioned a soul for man, why should 
we want to imprison God in an impenetrable past? This 
is a living world. Why nota living God upon the throne? 
Why not allow Him to work now? 

Theistic evolutionists insist that they magnify God 
when they credit Him with devising evolution as a plan 
of development. They sometimes characterize the Bible 
God as a “carpenter god,” who is described as repairing 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 257 


His work from time to time at man’s request. The ques- 
tion is not whether God could have made the world ac- 
cording to the plan of evolution—of course, an all-pow- 
erful God could make the world as He pleased. The 
real question is, Did God use evolution as His plan? If 
it could be shown that man, instead ot being made in the 
image of God, is a development of beasts we would have 
to accept it, regardless of its effect, for truth is truth and 
must prevail. But when there is no proof we have a 
right to consider the effect of the acceptance of an unsup- 
ported hypothesis. 


DARWIN’s AGNOSTICISM 


Darwinism made an agnostic out of Darwin. When 
he was a young man he believed in God; before he died 
he declared that the beginning of all things is a mystery 
insoluble by us. When he was a young man he be- 
lieved in the Bible; just before his death he declared that 
he did not believe that there had ever been any revela- , 
tion; that banished the Bible as the inspired Word of 
God, and, with it, the Christ of whom the Bible tells. 
When Darwin was young he believed in a future life; be- 
fore he died he declared that each must decide the ques- 
tion for himself from vague, uncertain probabilities. He 
could not throw any light upon the great questions of life 
and immortality. He said that he “must be content to 
remain an agnostic.” 

And then he brought the most terrific indictment that 
I have read against his own hypothesis. He asks (just 
before his death) : “Can the mind of man, which has, as 
I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that 
possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws 
such grand conclusions?” He brought man down to the 
brute level and then judged man’s mind by brute stan- 
dards. 

This is Darwinism. This is Darwin’s own testi- 
mony against himself. If Darwinism could make an ag- 


258 SELECTED ARTICLES 


nostic of Darwin, what is its effect likely to be upon stu- 
dents to whom Darwinism is taught at the very age when 
they are throwing off parental authority and becoming 
independent? Darwin’s guess gives the student an ex- 
cuse for rejecting the authority of God, an excuse that 
appeals to him more strongly at this age than at any other 
age in life. Many of them come back after a while as 
Romanes came back. After feeding upon husks for 
twenty-five years, he began to feel his way back, like a 
prodigal son, to his father’s house, but many never 
return. < 

Professor Leuba, who teaches psychology at Bryn 
Mawr, Pennsylvania, wrote a book about six years ago 
entitled “Belief in God and Immortality” (it can be ob- 
tained from the Open Court Publishing Company, Chica- 
go), in which he declared that belief in God and immor- 
tality 1s dying out among the educated classes. As proof 
of this he gave the results which he obtained by submit- 
ting questions to prominent scientists in the United 
States. He says that he found that more than half of 
them, according to their own answers, do not believe in a 
personal God or a personal immortality. To reinforce 
his position, he sent questions to students of nine repre- 
sentative colleges and found that unbelief increases from 
15 per cent in the freshman year to 30 per cent in the 
junior class, and to 40 to 45 per cent (among the men) 
at graduation. This he attributes to the influence of the 
scholarly men under whose instruction they pass in 
college. 


RELIGION WANING AMONG CHILDREN 


Anyone desiring to verify these statistics can do so by 
inquiry at our leading state institutions and even among 
some of our religious denominational colleges. Fathers 
and mothers complain of their children losing their in- 
terest in religion and speaking lightly of the Bible. This 
begins when they come under the influence of a teacher 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 259 


who accepts Darwin’s guess, ridicules the Bible story of 
creation and instructs the child upon the basis of the 
brute theory. In Columbia a teacher began his course 
in geology by telling the children to ae aside all that 
they had learned in Sunday School. A teacher of phil- 
osophy in the University of Michigan tells students that 
Christianity is a state of mind and that there are only 
two books of literary value in the Bible. Another pro- 
fessor in that university tells students that no thinking 
man can believe in God or in the Bible. A teacher in the 
University of Wisconsin tells his students that the Bible 
is a collection of myths. Another state university 
professor diverts a dozen young men from the ministry 
and the president of a prominent state university tells his 
students in a lecture on religion to throw away religion 
if it does not harmonize with the teaching of biology, 
psychology, etc. 

The effect of Darwinism is seen in the pulpits; men 
of prominent denominations deny the virgin birth of 
Christ and some even His resurrection. Two Presby- 
terians, preaching in New York state, recently told me 
that agnosticism was the natural attitude of old people. 
I-volution naturally leads to agnosticism. Those who. 
teach Darwinism are undermining the faith of Chris- 
tians; they are raising questions about the Bible as an 
authoritative source of truth; they are teaching ma- 
terialistic views that rob the life of the young of spiritual 
values. 

Christians do not object to freedom of speech; they 
believe that Biblical truth can hold its own in a fair field. 
They concede the right of ministers to pass from belief 
to agnosticism or atheism, but they contend that they 
should be honest enough to separate themselves from the 
ministry and not attempt to debase the religion which 
they profess. 

And so in the matter of education. Christians do not 
dispute the right of any teacher to be agnostic or atheis- 


260 SECECKTED ARLICLES 


tic, but Christians do deny the right of agnostics and 
atheists to use the public school as a forum for the teach- 
ing of their doctrines. 

The Bible has in many places been excluded from the 
schools on the ground that religion should not be taught 
by those paid by public taxation. If this doctrine is 
sound, what right have the enemies of religion to teach 
irreligion in the public schools? If the Bible cannot be 
taught, why should Christian taxpayers permit the teach- 
ing of guesses that make the Bible a lie? A teacher 
might just as well write over the door of his room, 
“Leave Christianity behind you, all ye who enter here,” 
as to ask his students to accept an hypothesis directly and 
irreconcilably antagonistic to the Bible. 

Our opponents are not fair. When we find fault 
with the teaching of Darwin’s unsupported hypothesis, 
thev talk about Copernicus and Galileo and ask whether 
we shall exclude science and return to the dark ages. 
Their evasion is a confession of weakness. We do not 
ask for the exclusion of any scientific truth, but we do 
protest against an atheist teacher being allowed to blow 
his guesses in the face of the student. The Christians 
who want to teach religion in their schools furnish the 
inoney for denominational institutions. If atheists want 
to teach atheism, why do they not build their own schools 
and employ their own teachers? If a man really believes 
that he has brute blood in him, he can teach that to his 
children at home or he can send them to atheistic schools, 
where his children will not be in danger of losing their 
brute philosophy, but why should he be allowed to deal 
with other people’s children as if they were little 
monkeys? 

We stamp upon our coins “In God We Trust”; we 
administer to witnesses an oath in which God’s name ap- 
pears, our President takes his oath of office upon the 
Bible. Is it fanatical to suggest that public taxes should 
not be employed for the purpose of undermining the 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 261 


nation’s God? When we defend the Mosaic account of 
inan’s creation and contend that man has no brute blood 
in him, but was made in God’s image by separate act and 
placed on earth to carry out a divine decree, we are de- 
fending the God of the Jews as well as the God of the 
Gentiles, the God of the Catholics as well as the God of 
the Protestants. We believe that faith in a Supreme 
Being is essential to civilization as well as to religion and 
that abandonment of God means ruin to the world and 
chaos to society. 

Let these believers in “the tree man” come down out 
of the trees and meet the issue. Let them defend the 
teachings of agnosticism or theism if they dare. If they 
deny that the natural tendency of Darwinism is to lead 
many to a denial of God, let them frankly point out the 
portions of the Bible which they regard as consistent with 
Darwinism, or evolution applied to man. They weaken 
faith in God, discourage prayer, raise doubt as to a fu- 
ture life, reduce Christ to the stature of a man, and make 
the Bible a “scrap of paper.” As religion is the only basis 
of morals, it is time for Christians to protect religion 
from its most insidious enemy. 





it 
\ 
¢ 
kp 
, 
Sb 
. 
j 
¢ 
7] 
5 
a? 
¥ 
+ 
. 
! 
' 
é 
+ 
f 
= 
' 
} 
4 
: ie 
4 
' 
- 
é 


ee 
eo ach 


a i yi I copa 


05) is Laat ae an 


P eae 


























by ityeistie, jee gr 
Boats» fre i. mt, ‘igi ner 

BP is $80: Mista ae Wal wikia 
“6 ae @ MISS) Weta a hin. ‘gia oA = 
sete tort NORE. Rie Bly ee td, awa Why tb. ie 


he bel yas ‘ay Wave i Sitelhed ong i) Ras 


+) cia 
ee Fe. big raph HATS -o Hi a rah 
COTE eye was Shay tnt ee LEA xe te see re ts ai sitanty fy 
lore . yale, ye hs a 


ay vit OF 23 Arrest how te scree ita 
: 7 + Os ‘ts ‘ aia’ ee . 


im PAIOR otra Sng nye ony” ihshe Pues i 


per ‘ . 


ee) Boston tact AGF a er ele taal Dee. 


a Se Aree ; ‘ » — 7 Pa 
COE 22 9 1atL wayly RY fr rity 49 is vi fonihehs Be a 
Cent) ye ee re ME oy her ae * 
Expt of Hyd tora we Rae ya 
EP ir en RI Parag Aye ilies 
~ « eer rc) yeh ay Le peed 4 LP 7 Bens 
4 we yal Ss t “ih } i} ig Det * ri iY naly & ‘oF " 
Bee. iti. ?> he. od Ps ee : i 4 
nae Done BEN P a bution Porth i? P MeRWe wt TF oat We fi? 
eg ed yh “" fe paY a 7 re F ige (Eitan F 4 j wa ley - ; 
; eye. ee § baw dis 4Fy i bas serie a ore 1, in ‘ih 


sed,’ 
‘ 


Oe . ry? re ny? rot ry e444 } Pp 4. Veer) rds a ,. 
Abby pete Liners ree ry aay toi Rah 

Hehe hen ae ia oe iy) hs i 1 ve na) 

ei aL a Fytp f r, > 


OTST? Hanae ‘ taste ist BH iy a a tes: 
tS Soleles aigibhees ale 
4 ’ =A \ ‘ «\ e ey Sy 
. re | 4 i iM te We , 
. ; ae 4 if ‘ ah 
2 ' pers # 
A " ‘ 
> ‘ ; 4 4 , ‘ 


ay Y>°-* 4) aT ak by 
‘ » 
i | Ae e \ ‘ tgs A 
e ‘ 4 : ' q . . , I 4 
iy a - run : , ‘ s aL Vie 5 Awa Eiped 
2 ‘ nl 
if af ; A 
‘rie es 4 fia ‘ as “uh oY 
4 . 7 “ 7 
" 5 ‘ 
» rd a, ‘ uP i a 


i " i “ 

Tafa « (A/Genn “alin ene Nias RA OR Ra ee Hiss 
ou “ar Las MA, bal ‘Melee 44 ei Ht tiie ea re "yy 
ie gh tilts hy a Nt bic “ut Seu Me ee hee fe 


aye ie 7 ‘TANG sph .)* eee BAT Ree 









B. THE ARGUMENT FOR EVOLUTION 


SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT FOR 
EVOLUTION’ 


The nature of the proof of organic evolution, then is 
this: that using the concept of organic evolution as a 
working hypothesis it has been possible to rationalize and 
render intelligible a vast array of observed phenomena, 
the real facts upon which evolution rests. Thus classi- 
fication (taxonomy), comparative anatomy, embryology, 
paleontology, zoogeography and phytogeography, ser- 
ology, genetics, become consistent and orderly sciences 
when based upon evolutionary foundations, and when 
viewed in any other way they are thrown into the ut- 
inost confusion. There is no other generalization known 
to man which is of the least value in giving these bodies 
of facts any sort of scientific coherence and unity. In 
other words, the working hypothesis works and is, there- 
fore, acceptable as truth until overthrown by a more 
workable hypothesis. Not only does the hypothesis work, 
but, with the steady accumulation of further facts, the 
weight of the evidence is now so great that it overcomes 
all intelligent opposition by its sheer mass. 


PE SCIENTISTS REPLYCTO MRIBRYAN 32 


The last few years have witnessed a curious recrudes- 
cence of the old theological fight of fifty years ago 
against evolution. This movement is partly due to the 


1By Professor H. H. Newman. Quoted by Gerald Birnie Smith. 
Journal of Religion. 2: 245-62. May, 1922. Can Christianity Welcome 
Freedom of Teaching? 

2 By Edwin Grant Conklin, Princeton University. New York Times. 
Sunday, March 5, 1922. 


264 SELECTED ARTICLES 


increased emotionalism let loose by the war and partly to 
the fact that uncertainty among scientists as to the causes 
of evolution has been interpreted by many non-scientific 
persons as throwing doubt upon its truth. Among those 
who have been leaders in this anti-evolution crusade are 
Billy Sunday and William Jennings Bryan. One who de- 
sires to know the truth about this or any other subject 
should inquire as to the competence of a witness, his im- 
partiality, the truthfulness of his testimony, and whether 
he has any new evidence to offer. On each of these 
counts both Mr. Sunday and Mr. Bryan fail to qualify 
as trustworthy witnesses. 

It is not on record that Mr. Bryan has ever made any 
discoveries with regard to evolution or that he has made 
any careful study of the subject, even at second hand. 
He frankly confesses that his motives are not to find the 
truth, but to maintain certain theological views which he 
thinks are taught by the Bible. He denies that there are 
any evidences for the truth of evolution and thereby 
shows that he is either unable to weigh and appreciate the 
great mass of evidence which has been presented or that 
he is purposely trying to mislead his hearers. And, fin- 
ally, he offers no new evidences whatever for reopening 
a case which in the court of intelligent opinion through- 
out the world has been closed for nearly half a century. 

The whole scientific world long since was convinced 
of the truth of evolution, and every year which has passed 
since the publication of “The Origin of Species” in 
1859 has added to the mountain of evidence which has 
been piled up in its favor. It is fortunately not necessary 
here to review the evidences of evolution, for these may 
be found in many elementary textbooks on_ biology. 
These evidences are so numerous and come from so 
many sources that no intelligent man can study them at 
first hand and not be impressed with their importance. 
As a consequence there is probably not a single biological 
investigator in the world today who is not convinced of 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 265 


the truth of evolution. The fact that these evidences ac- 
cumulate year after year, often coming from fields which 
Darwin and his contemporaries never dreamed of, is still 
more convincing. I once heard Lord Kelvin, the great 
physicist, say that any hypothesis or theory if true should 
find new support continually as knowledge advances. 
This is just what has happened in the case of evolution. 


ERRONEOUS AND MISLEADING 


Mr. Bryan makes much of the idea that evolution is 
only a hypothesis, or as he prefers to call it, a guess. But 
unless he uses the word “guess” in the Yankee sense of 
practical certainty, this is an erroneous and misleading 
statement. Evolution is a guess in the same sense as is 
the doctrine of universal gravitation, or any other great 
generalization of science. Can one honestly call that doc- 
trine a guess which is supported by all the evidence avail- 
able, which continually receives additional support from 
new discoveries and which is not contradicted by any 
scientific evidence? 

It is true that we do not know as much as we should 
like about the causes of evolution (though we know a 
good deal more than Mr. Bryan assumes), but the same 
may be said with regard to the causes of gravitation, 
light, electricity, chemical affinity, life or any other nat- 
ural phenomeon. The problem of cause is never finally 
solved by science, for no sooner is one cause discovered 
than it gives rise to questions concerning the cause of this 
cause. Strange as it may seem, it is only the causes of 
supernatural phenomena that are supposed to be fully 
known. 

Mr. Bryan is apparently ready to concede the evolu- 
tion of rocks and plants, and possibly of animals, but he 
draws the line at the evolution of man. When he says, 
as he does repeatedly in his article in The New York 
Times, that there are no evidences of the evolution of 
man; that “neither Darwin nor his supporters have been 


266 SELECTED ARTICLES 


able to find a fact in the universe to support their 
hypothesis,” it is hard to understand what he means. 
Darwin’s works are filled with facts in support of evolu- 
tion. They are composed of little except such facts, and 
multitudes of similar facts have been accumulated since 
Darwin’s day. 

Apparently Mr. Bryan demands to see a monkey or 
an ass transformed into a man, though he must be fa- 
miliar enough with the reverse process. The Hotspurs 
who demand that evolution be re-enacted “while they 
wait” should emulate the example of Josh Billings, who 
said he had heard that a toad would live four hundred 
years; he was going to catch one and see for himself. 
The evidences for the major transformations in the evo- 
lution of man are not personal demonstrations, since they 
do not fall within the lifetime of a single individual, 
but they are the same sort of evidence as those for moun- 
tain building, stream erosion, glacial action or any other 
secular change. 

The minor stages in evolution, known as mutations 
and elementary species, have been repeatedly observed 
in plants, animals and man. DeVries, Morgan and many 
ethers have demonstrated that sudden and very great 
changes or mutations sometimes occur, that these muta- 
tions may be combined to form races or elementary 
species, and there can be no reasonable doubt that these 
elementary species are combined to form Linnaean 
species. Among our domestic animals and cultivated 
plants such changes have been wrought as amount to spe- 
cific differences. Darwin says that any naturalist, if he 
should find our races of domestic pigeons wild in nature, 
would classify them in not less than twenty species and 
three different genera. A similar statement could be 
made regarding fowls and dogs, as well as many fruits, 
grains and vegetables. In short, evolution has occurred 
under domestication. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 207 


TRUE OF Man ALSO 


Everything which speaks for the evolution of plants 
and animals speaks plainly for the evolution of man. In 
the structure of the human body there is scarcely a bone, 
muscle, nerve or any other organ that does not have 
its counterpart in the higher primates and especially the 
anthropoid apes. Romanes, whom Mr. Bryan mentions as 
having lost and regained his religious faith, though he 
never lost his faith in evolution, says of these similarities 
between the body of man and that of the higher prim- 
ates: “Here we have a fact, or rather a hundred thousand 
facts, that cannot be attributed to chance, and if we re- 
ject the natural explanation of hereditary descent from a 
common ancestor, we can only suppose that the Deity in 
creating man took the most scrupulous pains to make him 
in the image of the beast.” 

Not only the structure but the functions of the hu- 
man body are fundamentally like those of other animals. 
We are born, nourished and develop, we reproduce, 
erow old and die, just as do other mammals. Specific 
functions of every organ are the same; drugs, diseases, 
injuries affect man as they do animals, and all the won- 
derful advances of experimental medicine are founded 
upon this fact. 

Development from a fertilized egg to birth goes 
through the same stages in man and other mammals even 
to the repeating of fish-like gill slits, kidneys, heart and 
blood vessels. Indeed, development from the egg re- 
capitulates some of the main stages of evolution—in it we 
see evolution repeated before our eyes. It is a curious 
fact that many persons who are seriously disturbed by 
scientific teachings as to the evolution or gradual develop- 
ment of the human race accept with equanimity the unt- 
versal observation as to the development of the human 
individual—mind as well as body. The animal ancestry 
of the race is surely no more disturbing to philosophical 


268 no SF wg 2B al 8 Oh BF 


and religious beliefs than the germinal origin of the in- 
dividual, and yet the latter is a fact of universal observa- 
tion which cannot be relegated to the domain of theory 
and which cannot be successfully denied. If we admit 
the fact of the development of the entire individual from 
an egg, surely it matters little to our religious beliefs to 
admit the development or evolution of the race. 

The discovery of fossil remains of man have proved 
conclusively that other species of men, more brute-like 
than any existing at the present time, preceded the pres- 
ent species, and the older these species are the more ape- 
like they were. Likewise their handiwork, implements 
and flints, are coarser and cruder the earlier they occur. 

All the evidences of evolution drawn from morph- 
ology, physiology, embryology, paleontology, homology, 
heredity, variation, etc., speak for the evolution of man as 
much as for that of any other organism. If evolution 
is true anywhere it is true also of man. 

Against all this mountain of evidence which Mr. 
Bryan tries to blow away by a word, what does he bring 
in support of his view of special creation? Only this, 
that evolution denies the Biblical account of the creation 
of man. What is that account? Here it is in a sentence: 
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the 
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; 
and man became a living soul.’’ Observe, ye literalists, 
that this does not say that God spoke man into existence, 
as when He said, “Let there be light; and there was 
light.” But a process is described by which man was 
formed or moulded from the dust, as the Egyptian and 
Babylonian deities are said to have molded man from 
clay on a potter’s wheel, and then to have breathed life 
into his nostrils. Since the Scriptures describe a process 
in the creation of man, the opponents of the theory of ev- 
olution ought to be able to conceive of a dignified and 
divine wav in which the Creator fashioned man, but this 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 269 


they do not do. The idea that the Eternal God took mud 
or mortar and moulded it with hands or tools into the 
human form is not only irreverent, it is ridiculous. How 
much more like the usual workings of that power, by 
whom and through whom are all things, is the view of 
evolution that God made the first man as He has made 
the last, and that His creative power is manifest just as 
truly and greatly in the origin of the last child of Adam, 
as in the origin of Adam himself. 

Is it any more degrading to hold that man was made 
through a long line of animal ancestry than to believe 
that he was made directly from the dust? Surely the 
horse and the dog and the monkey belong to higher or- 
ders of existence than do the clod and the stone. 
Whether we accept the teachings of evolution or the most 
literal interpretation of the Biblical account we are com- 
pelled to recognize the fact that our bodily origin has 
been a humble one; as Sir Charles Lyell once said, “It is 
mud or monkey.” But this lowly origin does not destroy 
the dignity of man; his real dignity consists not in his 
origin but in what he is and in what he may become. 

If only the theological opponents of evolution could 
learn anything from past attempts to confute science by 
the Bible they would be more cautious. It was once be- 
lieved universally that the earth was flat and that it was 
roofed over by a solid “firmament” and when scientific 
evidence was adduced to show that the earth was a 
sphere and that the “firmament” was not a solid roof, it 
was denounced as opposed to the Scriptures. Those who 
have visited the Columbian Library in the Cathedral of 
Seville will recall the Bible of Columbus with marginal 
notes in his own handwriting to prove that the sphericity 
of the earth was not opposed to the Scriptures, and a 
treatise written by him while in prison to pacify the In- 
quisition. Today only Voliva and his followers at Zion 
City maintain that the earth is flat, and the heavens a 


270 SELECTED ARTICLES 


solid dome, because this is apparently taught by the 
Scriptures. 

The central position of the earth in the universe with 
all heavenly bodies revolving around it was held to be 
as certain as holy writ. All the world knows the story 
of “Starry Galileo and His Woes’” at the hands of the 
Inquisition, but the Copernican theory was opposed not 
only by the Roman Catholic Church, but also by the 
leaders of the Reformation. Martin Luther denounced 
it as “the work of a fool,” Melanchthon declared that it 
was neither honest nor decent to teach this pernicious 
doctrine, and that it shoud be repressed by severe meas- 
ures, and John Wesley declared that it “tended toward 
infidelity.” Even as late as 1724 the Newtonian theory 
of gravity was assailed by eminent authorities as “atheis- 
tic,’ since “it drove God out of His universe and put a 
law in His place.” 


BryANn’s AUTO DE FE 


The conflict between geology and Genesis as to the 
days of creation and the age of the earth lasted until the 
middle of the last century, and students of Dana’s geol- 
ogy will recall the reconciliation between the two which 
that great man devoutly undertook. But, by the ultra- 
orthodox, he and other Christian geologists were de- 
nounced as infidels and as impugners of the sacred rec- 
ord. It took three hundred years to end this conflict, if 
it may be said to be wholly ended now, but certainly no 
intelligent person now believes that the earth was made 
just 5,926 years ago and in six literal days. 

And now comes Mr. Bryan in this twentieth century 
of enlightenment preaching a new auto de fe, attempting 
to establish an inquisition for the trial of science at the 
bar of theology! He proposes to prohibit the teaching 
of evolution by fine and imprisonment, to repeal a law of 
nature by a law of Kentucky. He proposes to gather 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 271 


into the fold of his narrow theology all existing public 
and private schools, colleges and universities and to allow 
evolutionists and agnostics to found their own schools. 
In view of the fact that, with the exception of a few sec- 
tarian institutions, all our colleges and universities are 
dedicated to “the increase and diffusion of knowledge 
among men.” that for a generation at least they have 
turned away from the teaching of dogmatic theology to 
the cultivation of science, literature and art, that they 
have during this period received great benefactions for 
the expressed or implied purpose of carrying on this 
work in the spirit of freedom to seek, to find and to teach 
the truth as God gives men to see the truth—in view of 
these considerations it may well be asked whether it 
would not be more fitting for Mr. Bryan to establish his 
own institution for teaching his own views of science and 
theology, as Dowie, for example, did at Zion City, rather 
than to attempt to convert existing institutions to that 
purpose. 

Scientific investigators and productive scholars in al- 
most every field have long since accepted evolution in the 
broadest sense as an established fact. Science now deals 
with the evolution of the elements, of the stars and solar 
system of the earth, of life upon the earth, of various 
types and species of plants and animals, of the body, 
mind and society of man, of science, art, government, 
education and religion. In the light of this great gen- 
eralization all sciences, and especially those which have 
io do with living things, have made more progress in the 
last half century than in all the previous centuries of hu- 
man history. Even progressive theology has come to re- 
gard evolution as an ally rather than as an enemy. 

In the face of all these facts, Mr. Bryan and his kind 
hurl their medieval theology. It would be amusing if it 
were not so pathetic and disheartening to see these mod- 
ern defenders of the faith beating their gongs and firing 
their giant crackers against the ramparts of science. 


272 SELECTED ARTICLES 


ANOTHER SCIENTIST’S REPLY TO 
MR. BRYAN’ 


The real question is, Did God use evolution as His plan? If 
tt could be shown that man, instead of being made in the image 
of God, 1s a development of beasts we would have to accept itt, 
regardless of its effect, for truth is truth and must prevail. But 
when there 1s no proof we have a right to consider the effect of 
the acceptance of an unsupported hypothesis—William Jennings 
Bryan, New York Times, Sunday, February 26, 1922.: 

I appreciate the invitation of The Times to present 
the state of our knowlédge today regarding Darwinism 
and the evolution of man, especially in relation to reli- 
gion, the Bible, and the all-important question of the 
moral education of our youth. Thousands of good people 
throughout this country who love the Bible of their 
fathers and are full of religious faith have been deeply af- 
fected by the eloquent and sincere addresses which the 
great commoner has been delivering. Large audiences 
have listened to him in all parts of the Union with deep 
interest, and on the members of the Kentucky legisla- 
ture he made so profound an impression that this body 
by only a very narrow vote missed the exclusion of evo- 
lutionary teaching in all the schools of the state. 

As evidence of Mr. Bryan’s sincerity, I have pur- 
posely quoted above the sentence which I consider the 
crux of his whole address, namely: “The real question 1s, 
Did God use evolution as His plan? If it could be shown 
that man, instead of being made in the image of God, is 
a development of beasts we would have to accept it, re- 
gardless of its effect, for truth is truth and must prevail.” 
I interpret this sentence as meaning that he is open to 
conviction, even if convinced against his will. JI am 
deeply impressed with the fact that he has familiarized 
himself with many of the debatable points in Darwin’s 


1 By Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of 
Natural History, Vertebrate Paleontologist of the United States Geological 
Survey, Research Professor of Zoology in Columbia University. New 
York Times. Sunday, March 5, 1922. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 273 


Opinions, stich as the theory of sexual selection, and it is 
not at all surprising, not being a specialist in biology, that 
he is extremely confused—as, in fact, many evolutionists 
are—by the radical differences of opinion as to the power 
of natural selection itself, expressed by recent writers 
such as John Burroughs and Professor Bateson. [If it 
is difficult for biologists to think straight on this very 
intricate subject of evolution, how much more difficult 
must it be for the layman? I have elsewhere shown in 
a recent number of Science that Bateson is living the life 
of a scientific specialist, out of the main current of bio- 
logical discovery, and that his opinion that we have failed 
to discover the origin of species is valueless and directly 
contrary to the truth. 

I have not yet had time to answer John Burroughs’ 
wholly misleading article on natural selection in The At- 
lantic Afonthly, but I would like to state positively, as a 
result of twenty-one years of a single research for the 


United States Geological Survey, that in my opinion na- | 
can) Ey FS 


tural selection is the only cause of evolution which has 
thus far been discovered and demonstrated. I believe 
there are many other causes which remain to be discov- 
ered. Mr. Bryan, who is an experienced politician, and 
who has known politicians to disagree, should not be sur- 
prised or misled when naturalists disagree in matters of 
opinion. No living naturalist, however, so far as I know, 
differs as to the immutable truth of evolution in the sense 
of the continuous fitness of plants and animals to their 
environment and the ascent of all the extinct and ex- 
isting forms of life, including man, from an original and 
single cellular state. 

There are two aspects of Mr. Bryan’s address: One, 
religious and philosophical, on which I may first com- 
ment, the other, natural, or coming within the field of 
direct observation, namely, the origin of species and the 
origin of man. The former affects our religious beliefs 
or ideas of God and His relation to nature; the latter is 
simply a matter of direct observation of the testimony of 


274 SELECTED ARTICLES 


the earth; the former will always be debatable and 
largely a matter of personal faith or of skepticism; the 
latter is a matter of the laboratory, of the field naturalist, 
of indefatigable digging in all parts of the worid among 
the ancient archives of the earth’s history. If Mr. Bryan, 
with an open heart and mind, would drop all his books 
and all the disputations among the doctors and study first 
hand the simple archives of nature, all his doubts would 
disappear; he would not lose his religion; he would be- 
come af evolutionist. 


“TRutTH Is TRuTH ANp Must. PREVAIL? 


These words constitute the solid rock on which endur- 
ing religion and the only enduring knowledge of nature 
rest, while the shifting sands of human opinion are swept 
hither and thither both in theology and in science. 
Wrecked on these sands of opinion are many great 
names, both in theology and in science, but fortunately 
there have lived some wise pilots of nature who would 
have kept our thinking straight if we had kept their 
counsel. I had the good fortune to fall under the influ- 
ence of James McCosh, natural philosopher and divine, 
who is his lectures on “Christianity and Positivism” ac- 
cepted evolution, with most of its implications, in the 
year 1876. 

Thirteen years earlier, in 1863, Charles Kingsley, 
whose religion no one has ever challenged, struck the 
note of truth only four vears after Darwin’s “Origin of 
Species” appeared, when he wrote to Frederick Mau- 
rice, one of the most profoundly religious men that Eng- 
land has produced: “Darwin is conquering everywhere, 
and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and 
fact. The one or two who hold out [against Darwin] 
are forced to try all sorts of subterfuges as to fact, or 
else by evoking the odium theologicum....’ In the same 
letter Kingsley says: “The state of the scientific mind is 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 275 


most curious;... they find that now they have got rid of 
an interfering God—a master magician, as I call it—they 
have to choose between the absolute empire of accident, 
and a living, immanent, ever-working God.” 

Kingsley describes himself as “busy working out 
points of natural theology, by the strange light of Huxley, 
Darwin and Lyell. I think I shall come to something 
worth having before I have done.” While in the van of 
the religious thinkers of his time, Kingsley was not in a 
position to answer Mr. Bryan’s main question, “Did God 
use evolution as His plan?” for evolution in 1863 rested 
on the indirect or circumstantial evidence presented by 
Darwin, while in 1922 it is the most firmly established 
truth in the natural universe and, in Mr. Bryan’s lan- 
euage, we shall have to accept it regardless of its effect. 
Let us, therefore, glance at some of the effect. I am not 
writing to convince evolutionists, I am writing to con- 
vince Mr. Bryan himself and his many followers. That 
you may avoid all religious doubts and difficulties, let us 
accept as the foundation of your faith the creed which 
runs through the.Old and New Testaments alike and is 
best expressed in the grand old Latin phrase, “Pleni sunt 
coeli et terra tua gloria.” Without this creed, you may be 
an atheist or an agnostic. With the creed you are in a se- 
cure citadel of faith, because when discovery follows dis- 
covery and you are obliged to surrender the preconcep- 
tions of man in his ignorance as to the sun moving 
round the earth, as Joshua believed, as to the flatness of 
the earth, as to the universe being formed in six days of 
twenty-four hours, as to all the millions of species of ani- 
mals and plants being made within four days, as to man 
being made in the image of God in one day, as to woman 
being made out of the rib of man—you remain serene, 
because you humbly accept the universe and man as God 
willed them. You may be convinced that your misgiv- 
ings and prejudices against nature will all be resolved, 
if you simply repeat to yourself: “I accept nature as God 
made it; truth is truth and must prevail.” 


276 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Tue BIBLE A PROOF OF THE SPIRITUAL AND MORAL 
EvoLuTION OF MAN 


Nothing should be more clearly or more emphatically 
taught to our youth than that the Bible is the story of 
the spiritual and moral progress of man, in less degree 
his intellectual progress—in these senses a perpetual 
source of inspiration, of religious consolation, and the 
most permanent foundation of conduct. We naturalists 
tay accept as transcendent teaching that the universe is 
by no means the result of accident or chance, but of an 
omnipresent beauty and*order, in the Old Testament at- 
tributed to Jehovah, in our language to God. Evolution 
by no means takes God out of the universe, as Mr. Bryan 
supposes, but it greatly increases both the wonder, the 
mystery, and the marvelous order which we call “natural 
law,” pervading all nature. 

No child should be taught that the Bible tells the 
story of nature as it has been revealed to us through two 
thousand years of observation, and especially during the 
last one hundred years. There was no curiosity of na- 
ture among the writers of the Bible, as there is little na- 
tural curiosity among Orientais today. It was not until 
the Book of Job was written, about 450 B.C., that we 
find the guiding precept of the naturalist, “Speak to the 
earth and it shall teach thee.’ When Mr. Bryan ob- 
serves that evolution finds “no support in the Bible,” he 
is absolutely right; just as he is absolutely wrong when 
he maintains that evolution ends in atheism. On this 
point I know I shall not convince him if I quote any 
scientific authority, but I feel that I may direct Mr. 
Bryan’s attention to a writer that he has evidently not 
studied, namely, the great theologian of the fifth century, 
St. Augustine, 354-430 A.D. I may quote St. Augustine 
on two points, first, as to the wisdom of leaving nature 
to the naturalists: 


It very often happens that there is some question as to the 
earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world... re- 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 277 


specting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge de- 
rived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very 
disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully 
avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being ac- 
cording to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an un- 
believer talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving 
him to be as wide from the mark as east from west, can hardly 
restrain himself from laughing. 

To Augustine also Mr. Bryan may be referred for a 
sound and thoroughly modern theistic conception of ev- 
olution. Augustine held that all development takes its na- 
tural course through the powers imparted to matter by 
the Creator; even the bodily structure of man himself is 
according to this plan, and, therefore, a product of this 
natural development; he taught that in the institution of 
nature we should not look for miracles, but for the laws 
of nature; he distinctly rejected the Mosaic idea of the 
ix-day creation, in favor of the teaching which, without 
violence to language, we may call a heey of evolution ; 
that all things developed by causal energy and potency, 
not only the heavens, but also those living things which 
the waters and the earth produced, so that in due time, 
after long delays, they developed into their perfected 
forms. 

We may now leave this metaphysical part of the sub- 
ject, and return to the evidence that evolution was the 
plan and the only plan of nature; that all species of ani- 
mals and plants originated in this way; that man has as- 
cended from the ranks of nature. There was a time 
when man considered himself greatly superior to the ani- 
mal kingdom, in fact the Psalmist exalts him, giving him 
dominion over the whole earth; but since 1914 man has 
become more humble, he is not quite so confident of his 
superiority over the rest of God’s creation. 


ORIGIN OF SPECIES ABSOLUTELY SOLVED 


The mode of origin of species was practically dis- 
covered by a little-known German paleontologist by the 
name of Waagen in 1869, but, like the great discovery of 


278 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Mendel in heredity, this truth has been long in making its 
way, even among biologists. Waagen’s observations that 
species do not originate by chance or by accident, as Dar- 
win at one time supposed, but through a continuous and 
well-ordered process, has since been confirmed by an 
overwhelming volume of testimony, so that we are now 
able to assemble and place in order line after line of ani- 
mals in their true evolutionary succession, extending, in 
the case of what I have called the édition de luxe of the 
horses, over millions of years. We speak to the earth 
from Eocene times onward to the closing age of man, 
and it always teaches us exactly the same story. These 
facts are so well known and make up such an army of 
evidence, that they form the chief foundation of the state- 
ment that evolution has long since passed out of the do- 
main of hypothesis and theory, to which Mr. Bryan re- 
fers, into the domain of natural law. 

Evolution takes its place with the gravitation law of 
Newton. It should be taught in our schools simply as 
nature speaks to us about it, and entirely separated from 
the opinions, materialistic or theistic, which have clus- 
tered about it. This simple, direct teaching of nature 
is full of moral and spiritual force, if we keep the element 
of human opinion out of it. The moral principle inher- 
ent in evolution is that nothing can be gained in this 
world without an effort; the ethical principle inherent in 
evolution is that the best only has the right to survive; 
the spiritual principle in evolution is the evidence of 
beauty, of order, and of design in the daily myriad of mir- 
acles to which we owe our existence. This is my answer 
to Mr. Bryan’s very natural solicitude about the influence 
of evolution in our schools and colleges—a solicitude not 
inherent in the subject itself, but in the foolishness and 
conceit of certain of the teachers who are privileged to 
teach of the processes of life, 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 279 


EvoLUTION OF MAN FIRMLY ESTABLISHED 


It would not be true to say that the evolution of man 
rests upon evidence as complete as that of the horse, for 
example, because we have only traced man’s ancestors 
back for a period of four hundred thousand years, as 
geologic time was conservatively estimated in 1893 by 
Secretary Walcott of the Smithsonian Institution, Wash- 
ington ; whereas, we have traced the horse back for a per- 
iod of three million years, according to similar estimates 
of geological time. 

The very recent discovery of tertiary man, which I 
have just described in Natural History (November-De- 
cember, 1921), living long before the Ice Age, certainly 
capable of walking in an erect position, having a hand 
and a foot fashioned like our own, also a brain of suffi- 
cient intelligence to fashion many different kinds of im- 
plements, to make a fire, to make flint tools which may 
have been used for the dressing of hides as clothing, 
constitutes the most convincing answer to Mr. Bryan’s 
call for more evidence. It once more reminds us of the 
ignorance of man of the processes of nature, and sets 
a new boundary beyond which digging in the earth for 
more of truth must be directed. This Foxhall man, 
found near Ipswich, England, thus far known only by ~ 
the flint implements he made and his fire, is the last bit of 
evidence in the direction of giving man a descent line of 
his own far back in geologic time. It tends to remove 
man still further from the great lines which led to the 
man apes, the chimpanzee, the orang, the gorilla and the 
gibbon. This is not guess work, this is a fact. It is 
another truth which we shall have to accept regardless 
of its effect. No naturalist has ever ventured to place 
man so far back in geologic time as this actual discovery 
of the Foxhall man places him. In this instance again 
truth is stranger than hypothesis or speculation. 

Nearer to us is the Piltdown man, found not far 


280 SELECTED “ARTICLES 


from seventy-five miles to the southwest of Ipswich, 
England; still nearer in geologic time is the Heidelberg 
man, found on the Neckar River; still nearer is the Ne- 
anderthal man, whom we now know all about—his frame, 
his head form, his industries, his ceremonial burial of 
the dead, also evidence of his belief in a future exis- 
tence; nearer still is the Cro-Magnon man, who lived 
about thirty thousand years ago, our. equal if 
not our superior in intelligence. This chain of human 
ancestors was totally unknown to Darwin. He could not 
have even dreamed of such a flood of proof and truth. 
It is a dramatic circumstance that Darwin had within 
his reach the head of the Neanderthal man without real- 
izing that it constituted the “missing link” between man 
and the lower order of creation. All this evidence is to- 
day within reach of every schoolboy. It is at the ser- 
vice-of Mr. Bryan. It will, we are convinced, satisfac- 
torily answer in the negative his question: “Is it not 
more rational to believe in the creation of man by sep- 
arate act of God than to believe in evolution without a 
particle of evidence?” 


HAVE THE EVOLUTIONISTS ADMITTED 
DEFEAT ?? 


Anyone familiar with the work of scientists at first 
hand knows that the scientific attitude involves a humility 
in the face of facts which prevents premature dogma- 
tism. The address of Professor William Bateson at 
Toronto in December, 1921, is being quoted—in spots— 
by the anti-evolutionists; for Professor Bateson frankly 
admitted that nothing is yet scientifically known concern- 
ing the origin of species. This seems, at first glance, like 
a confirmation of the statement that evolutionists are sim- 
ply engaged in guessing; and it is being thus used by 

1 By Gerald Birnie Smith, professor in the Divinity School, University 


of Chicago. Journal of Religion. 2: 245-62. May, 1922. Can Christianity 
Welcome Freedom of Teaching? 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 281 


the Fundamentalists. It rhymes well with their other 
citations from scientists to the effect that Darwinism is 
now discredited. But the concluding paragraph of Pro- 
fessor Bateson’s address deserves attention; for it shows 
how far removed is his attitude of scientific honesty from 
the dogmatic attitude of the anti-evolutionists. Said he: 


I have put to you very frankly the considerations which have 
made us agnostic as to the actual mode and processes of evo- 
ution. 

When such confessions are made the enemies of science 
see their chance. If we cannot declare here and now how species 
arose, they will obligingly offer us solutions with which ob- 
scurantism is satisfied. Let us then proclaim in precise and un- 
mistakable language that our faith in evolution is unshaken. 
Every available line of argument converges on this inevitable 
conclusion. The obscurantist has nothing to suggest which is 
worth a moment’s attention. The difficulties which weigh upon 
the professional biologist need not trouble the layman. Our 
doubts are not as to the reality or truth of evolution, but as 
to the origin of species, a technical, almost domestic problem. 
Any day that mystery may be solved. The discoveries of the 
last twenty-five years enable us for the first time to discuss 
these questions intelligently and on a basis of fact. That syn- 
thesis will follow on an analysis we do not and cannot doubt. 


In other words, the hypothesis of evolution is an in- 
dispensable instrument for scientific research; although 
no one is yet in a position to declare finally just what is 
the exact process by which new species arise. Scientists 
today await the detailed researches of scientists in the 
future in order to construct a theary which shall account 
for all the facts in detail. 

There is in this scientific attitude something so fine 
in its spirit of humility and devotion that it should be 
welcomed by religion. To be willing to follow the lead- 
ing of the facts when these have been surely identified, 
to trust to the cooperative labors of scientists everywhere 
to contribute to a constantly growing knowledge of the 
world in which we live, to use hypotheses in so honest 
a way as to provide for their constant modification in 
the interests of truth—all this is what we sorely need 
to save us from faddists and undisciplined enthusiasts. 


282 SELECTED ARTICLES 


And this Mr. Bryan caricatures as an irresponsible atti- 
tude in which a “guess” is made supreme! It bodes ill 
for a religion if its advocates are incapable of appreciat- 
ing the spiritual value of scientific honesty. 


A REPLY TO MR. BRYAN IN THE NAME OF 
RELIGION * 


The editor of The Times has asked me to reply to 
Mr. Bryan’s statement on “God and Evolution.” I do 
so, if only to voice the sentiments of a large number of 
Christian people who in the name of religion are quite 
as shocked as any scientist could be in the name of 
science at Mr. Bryan’s sincere but appalling obscuran- 
tism. 

So far as the scientific aspect of the discussion is con- 
cerned, scientists may well be left to handle it. Suffice 
it to say that when Mr. Bryan reduces evolution to a 
hypothesis and then identifies a hypothesis with a “guess” 
he is guilty of a sophistry so shallow and palpable that 
one wonders at his hardihood in risking it. A guess is 
a haphazard venture of opinion without investigation be- 
fore or just reason afterward to sustain it; it is a jeu 
d’esprit. But a hypothesis is a seriously proffered ex- 
planation of a difficult problem ventured when careful in- 
vestigation of facts points to it, retained as long as the 
discovered facts sustain it, and surrendered as soon as 
another hypothesis enters the field which better explains 
the phenomena in question. 

Every universally accepted scientific truth which we 
possess began as a hypothesis, is in a sense a hypothesis 
still, and has become a hypothesis transformed into a 
settled conviction as the mass of accumulating evidence 
left no questions as to its substantial validity. To call 
evolution, therefore, a guess is one thing; to tell the truth 

1 By Harry Emerson Fosdick, professor in Union Theological Semina 


and preacher at the First Presbyterian Church, New York. New Yor 
Times. Sunday, March 12, 1922. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 283 


about it is another, for to tell the truth involves recog- 
nizing the tireless patience with which generations of 
scientists in every appropriate field of inquiry have been 
investigating all discoverable facts that bear upon the 
problem of mutation of species, with substantial unanim- 
ity as to the results so far as belief in the hypothesis 
of evolution is concerned. When Darwin, after years 
of patient, unremitting study, ventured his hypothesis in 
explanation of evolution—a hypothesis which was bound 
to be corrected and improved—one may say anything 
else one will about it except to call it a “guess.” That is 
the one thing which it certainly was not. Today, the 
evolutionary hypothesis, after many years of pitiless at- 
tack and searching investigation, is, as a whole, the most 
adequate explanation of the facts with regard to the 
origin of species that we have yet attained, and it was 
never so solidly grounded as it is today. Dr. Osborn is 
making, surely, a safe statement when he says that no 
living naturalist, so far as he knows, “differs as to the 
immutable truth of evolution in the sense of the con- 
tinuous fitness of plants and animals to their environ- 
ment and the ascent of all the extinct and existing forms 
of life, including man, from an original and single cel- 
lular state.” 


THE REAL SITUATION 


When, therefore, Mr. Bryan says, “Neither Darwin 
nor his supporters have been able to find a fact in the 
universe to support their hypothesis,’ it would be difficult 
to imagine a statement more obviously and demonstrably 
mistaken. The real situation is that every fact on which 
investigation has been able to lay its hands helps to con- 
firm the hypothesis of evolution. There is no known 
fact which stands out against it. Each newly discovered 
fact fits into an appropriate place in it. So far as the 
general outlines of it are concerned, the Copernican as- 
tronomy itself is hardly established more solidly. 


284 SELECTED ARTICLES 


My reply, however, is particularly concerned with the 
theological aspects of Mr. Bryan’s statement. There 
seems to be no doubt about what his position is. He 
proposes to take his science from the Bible. He pro- 
poses, certainly, to take no science that is contradicted 
by the Bible. He says, “Is it not strange that Christians 
will accept Darwinism as a substitute for the Bible when 
the Bible not only does not support Darwin’s hypothesis, 
but directly and expressly contradicts it?” What other 
interpretation of such a statement is possible except this: 
that the Bible is for Mr. Bryan an authoritative textbook 
in biology—and if in biology, why not in astronomy, cos- 
mogony, chemistry or any other science, art, concern of 
man whatever? One who is acquainted with the history 
of theological thought gasps as he reads this. At the 
close of the sixteenth century a Protestant theologian 
set down the importance of the Book of Genesis as he 
understood it. He said that the text of Genesis “must 
be received strictly ;” that “it contains all knowledge, hu- 
man and divine;” that “twenty-eight articles of the Augs- 
burg Confession are to be found in it;” that “it is an 
arsenal of arguments against all sects and sorts of athe- 
ists, pagans, Jews, Turks, Tartars, Papists, Calvinists, 
Socinians and Baptists;”’ that it is “the source of all 
science and arts, including law, medicine, philosophy and 
rhetoric,” “the source and essence of all histories and of 
all professions, trades and works,” “an exhibition of all 
virtues and vices,” and “the origin of all consolation.” 

One had supposed that the days when such wild 
anachronisms could pass muster as good theology were 
passed, but Mr. Bryan is regalvanizing into life that same 
outmoded idea of what the Bible is and proposes in the 
twentieth century that we shall use Genesis, which re- 
flects the pre-scientific view of the Hebrew people cen- 
turies before Christ as an authoritative textbook. in 
science, beyond whose conclusions we dare not go. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 285 


MARTIN LUTHER AND BRYAN 


Why, then, should Mr. Bryan complain because his 
attitude toward evolution is compared repeatedly, as he 
says it is, with the attitude of the theological opponents 
of Copernicus and Galileo? On his own statement, the 
parallelism is complete. Martin Luther attacked Coper- 
nicus with the same appeal which Mr. Bryan uses. He 
appealed to the Bible. He said: “People gave ear to an 
upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth re- 
volves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and 
the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise 
some new system, which of all systems is, of course, the 
very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science 
of astronomy, but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua 
commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” 

Nor was Martin Luther wrong if the Bible is indeed 
an authoritative text book in science. The denial of the 
Copernican astronomy with its moving earth can un- 
questionably be found in the Bible if one starts out to 
use the Bible that way—‘“The world also is established, 
that it cannot be moved” (Psalm 93:1); “Who laid the 
foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved 
forever” (Psalm 104:5). Moreover, in those bygone 
days, the people who were then using Mr. Bryan’s method 
of argument did quote these passages as proof, and 
Father Inchofer felt so confident that he cried, 

The opinion of the earth’s motion is of all heresies the most 
abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous; the im- 
movability of the earth is thrice sacred; argument against the 
immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the incarna- 
tion should be tolerated sooner than an argument to prove that 
the earth moves. 

Indeed, as everybody knows who has seriously studied 
the Bible, that book represents in its cosmology and its 
cosmogony the view of the physical universe which every- 
where obtained in the ancient Semitic world. The earth 
was flat and was founded on an underlying sea (Psalm 
136:6; Psalm 24: 1-2; Genesis 7: 11) ; it was stationary ; 


286 SELECTED ARTICLES 


the heavens, like an upturned bowl, “strong as a molten 
mirror” (Job 37: 18; Genesis 1: 6-8; Isaiah 40: 22; Psalm 
104:2), rested on the earth beneath (Amos 9:6; Job 
26:11); the sun, moon and stars moved within the fir- 
mament of special purpose to illumine man (Genesis 
1: 14-19); there was a sea above the sky, “the waters 
which were above the firmament” (Genesis 1:7; Psalm 
148: 4) and through “the windows of heaven” the rain 
came down (Genesis 7:11; Psalm 78:23); beneath the 
earth was mysterious Sheol where dwelt the shadowy 
dead (Isaiah 14:9-11); and all this had been made in 
six days, each of which had had a morning and an even- 
" ing, a short and measurable time before (Genesis 1). 

Are we to understand that this is Mr. Bryan’s science, 
that we must teach this science in our schools, that we 
are estopped by divine revelation from ever going be- 
yond this science? Yet this is exactly what Mr. Bryan 
would force us to if with intellectual consistency he 
should carry out the implications of his appeal to the 
sible against the scientific hypothesis of evolution in 
biology. 

THE BIBLE’s PRECIoUS TRUTHS 


One who is a teacher and preacher of religion raises 
his protest against all this just because it does such gross 
injustice to the Bible. There is no book to compare with 
it. The world never needed more its fundamental prin- 
ciples of life, its fully developed views of God and man, 
its finest faiths and hopes and loves. When one reads an 
article like Mr. Bryan’s one feels, not that the Bible is 
being defended, but that it is being attacked. Is a ’cello 
defended when instead of being used for music it is ad- 
vertised as a good dinner table? Mr. Bryan does a simi- 
lar disservice to the Bible when, instead of using it for 
what it is, the most noble, useful, inspiring and inspired 
book of spiritual life which we have, the record of God’s 
progressive unfolding of His character and will from 
early primitive beginnings to the high noon in Christ, he 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 287 


sets it up for what it is not and never was meant to be— 
a procrustean bed to whose infallible measurements all 
human thought must be forever trimmed. 

The fundamental interest which leads Mr. Bryan and 
others of his school to hate evolution is the fear that it 
will depreciate the dignity of man. Just what do they 
mean? Even in the Book of Genesis God made man out 
of the dust of the earth. Surely, that is low enough to 
start and evolution starts no lower. So long as God is 
the creative power, what difference does it make whether 
out of the dust by sudden fiat or out of the dust by 
gradual process God brought man into being? Here man 
is and what he is he is. Were it decided that God had 
dropped him from the sky, he still would be the man he 
is. If it is decided that God brought him up by slow 
gradations out of lower forms of life, he still is the man 
heats, 

The fact is that the process by which man came to 
be upon the planet is a very important scientific prob- 
lem, but it is not a crucially important religious problem. 
Origins prove nothing in the realm of values. To all 
folk of spiritual insight man, no matter by what process 
he at first arrived, is the child of God, made in His image, 
destined for His character. If one could appeal directly 
to Mr. Bryan he would wish to say: let the scientists 
thresh out the problems of man’s biological origin but 
in the meantime do not teach men that if God did not 
make us by fiat then we have nothing but a bestial her1- 
tage. That is a lie which once believed will have a ter- 
rific harvest. It is regrettable business that a prominent 
Christian should bé teaching that. 

One writes this with warm sympathy for the cause 
which gives Mr. Bryan such anxious concern. He is 
fearful that the youth of the new generation, taught the 
doctrine of a materialistic science, may lose that religious 
faith in God and in the realities of the spiritual life on 
which alone an abiding civilization can be founded. His 


288 SELECTED ARTICLES 


fear is well grounded, as every one closely associated 
with the students of our colleges and universities knows. 
Many of them are sadly confused, mentally in chaos, and, 
so far as any guiding principles of religious faith are 
concerned, are often without chart, compass or anchor. 


DANGER OF MATERIALISTIC TEACHING 


There are types of teaching in our universities which 
are hostile to any confidence in the creative reality of the 
spiritual life—dreary philosophies which reduce every- 
thing to predetermined mechanical activity. Some class- 
rooms doubtless are, as Mr. Bryan thinks, antagonistic, 
in the effect which they produce, alike to sustained in- 
tegrity of character, buoyancy and hopefulness of life and 
progress in society. But Mr. Bryan’s association of this 
pessimistic and materialistic teaching with the biological 
theory of evolution is only drawing a red herring across 
the real trail. The distinction between inspiring, spirit- 
ually minded teachers and deadening, irreligious teachers 
is not at the point of belief in evolution at all. Our 
greatest teachers, as well as our poorest, those who are 
profoundly religious as well as those who are scornfully 
irreligious, believe in evolution. The new biology has no 
more to do with the difference between them than the 
new astronomy or the new chemistry. If the hypothesis 
of evolution were smashed tomorrow, there would be no 
more religiously minded scientists and no fewer irre- 
ligious ones. 


HEART OF PROBLEM 


The real crux of the problem in university circles is 
whether we are going to think of creative reality in 
physical or in spiritual terms, and that question cannot 
be met on the lines that Mr. Bryan has laid down. In- 
deed, the real enemies of the Christian faith, so far as 
our students are concerned, are not the evolutionary biol- 
ogists, but folk like Mr. Bryan who insist on setting up 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 289 


artificial adhesions between Christianity and outgrown 
scientific opinions, and who proclaim that we cannot have 
one without the other. The pity is that so many students 
will believe him and, finding it impossible to retain the 
outgrown scientific opinions, will give up Christianity 
in accordance with Mr. Bryan’s insistence that they must. 
Quite as amazing as his view of the Bible is Mr. 
Bryan’s view of the effect of evolution upon man’s 
thought of God. If ever a topsy-turvy statement was 
made about any matter capable of definitive information, 
Mr. Bryan’s statement deserves that description, for it 
turns the truth upside down. He says: “The theistic 
evolutionist puts God so far away that He ceases to be 
a present influence in the life... . Why should we want 
to imprison God in an impenetrable past? This is a liv- 
ing world. Why not a living God upon the throne? Why 
not allow Him to work now?” But the effect of evo- 
lution upon man’s thought of God, as every serious stu- 
dent of theology knows, has been directly the opposite 
of what Mr. Bryan supposes. It was in the eighteenth 
century that men thought of God as the vague, dim figure 
over the crest of the first hill who gave this universal to- 
boggan its primeval shove and has been watching it slid- 
ing ever since. It was in the eighteenth century that God 
was thought of as the absentee landlord who had built 
the house and left it—as the shipwright who had built 
the ship and then turned it over to the master mariners, 
his natural laws. Such ideas of God are associated with 
eighteenth century Deism, but the nineteenth century’s 
most characteristic thought of God was in terms of im- 
manence—God here in this world, the life of all that 
lives, the sustaining energy of all that exists, as our spirits 
are in our bodies, permeating, vitalizing, directing all. 
The idea of evolution was one of the great factors 
in this most profitable change. In a world nailed to- 
gether like a box, God, the Creator, had been thought 
of as a carpenter who created the universe long ago; now, 


200 SELECTED ARTICLES 


in a world growing like a tree, ever more putting out new 
roots and new branches, God has more and more been 
seen as the indwelling spiritual life. Consider that bright 
light of nineteenth century Christianity, Henry Drum- 
mond, the companion of D. L. Moody in his evangelistic 
tours. He believed in evolution. What did it do to his 
thought of God? Just what it has done to the thought 
of multitudes. Said Drummond: “If God appears peri- 
odically He disappears periodically. If He comes upon 
the scene at special crises, He is absent from the scene 
in the intervals. Whether is all-God or occasional-God 
the nobler theory? Positively the idea of an immanent 
God, which is the God of evolution, is infinitely grander 
than the occasional wonder-worker who is the God of an 
old theology.” 

Mr. Bryan proposes, then, that instead of entering 
into this rich heritage where ancient faith, flowering out 
in new world views, grows richer with the passing 
centuries, we shall run ourselves into his mold of 
medievalism. He proposes, too, that his special form 
of medievalism shall be made authoritative by the state, 
promulgated as the only teaching allowed in the schools. 
Surely, we can promise him a long, long road to travel 
before he plunges the educational system of this country 
into such incredible folly, and if he does succeed in 
arousing a real battle over the issue we can promise him 
also that just as earnestly as the scientists will fight 
against him in the name of scientific freedom of investi- 
gation so will multitudes of Christians fight against him 
in the name of their religion and their God. 


DARWIN’S LOSS OF FAITH EXPLAINED* 


[Mr. Bryan] reminds his readers that in his youth 
Darwin held the evangelical views as to the Bible and 
the divine origin of the Christian religion, while in his 


1 From Religion or Dogma? by Newell Dwight Hillis. Forum. 70: 1681- 
97. July, 1923. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 29! 


age, after long defending the doctrine of evolution, his 
belief in the being of God and in any revelation whatso- 
ever weakened, until at last he announced himself an “ag- 
nostic,’ unwilling to trust the human intellect, “when it 
draws such grand conclusions concerning God and 
heaven.” But Mr. Bryan has overlooked the larger fact 
that if forty years of neglect of the nerve of religious 
sensation starved to death that nerve’s vision, Darwin’s 
faculties toward music, poetry, dramatic art, and painting 
also suffered grievously by the starvation and neglect of 
those forty years. In his “Life and Letters,” Darwin 
tells us that in his youth he loved the drama, listened 
with rapturous enthusiasm to those actors who inter- 
preted Hamlet, Macbeth, and King Lear, frequented con- 
certs, the oratorio, and grand opera. Then came forty 
crowded and tumultuous years during which he gave 
every minute of time and every atom of strength to a 
hypothesis that he realized might prove to be only a 
“brilliant guess,’ namely, that the method of creation 
was the method exhibited in acorns going slowly toward 
oaks, in tents going toward houses and forked sticks 
going toward plows, and that “perhaps” the fire mist 
miay have developed into a habitable world. In the realm 
of the heart, a man must keep his friendship in good re- 
pair. Even mothers learn to love, by loving. Charles 
Darwin so starved the religious side of his soul that 
the spiritual optic nerve atrophied after the fashion of 
the mole, that refuses to come out into the sunshine, or 
the blind fish that remain in the dark waters of Mam- 
moth Cave. This confession of Darwin as to the griev- 
ous injury to his faith in God that followed forty years 
of total neglect, simply helps us understand how it was 
that in old age, when his health broke, and his physician 
sent him to the theater, the opera, to the picture gallery 
and cathedral, he found himself incapable of becoming 
interested in the slightest degree. 

Darwin’s experience, therefore, simply illustrates the 
law that the nerve toward the library, the gallery, the 


202 SLLECTED SAR PICEERS 


realm of music, and even the nerve of religious sensa- 
tion, can be atrophied by neglect. “There is a little 
flower in the garden of the soul named reverence,” said 
Oliver Wendel Holmes, “and I find it must be watered 
at least once a week.” What Mr. Darwin’s example 
proves) is ~ the’ * peril’ “of "neéslectine’”™ any, “Orarame 
faculties of the soul and that the nerve of religious sen- 
sation must be taken care of, nourished, and cultivated. 
That One whose name is above every name, once likened 
Himself to a vine—the vine of life, the vine whose leaves 
heal wounds, the wourtds of the nations, but He indicated 
that even that divine vine has to be watered, pruned, and 
taken care of, for He added, “My Father is the Husband- 
man” toiling in the vineyard. ‘The real lesson of Darwin’s 
life, therefore, is not that belief in evolution reacts upon 
and destroys religious faith—the real lesson of his «n- 
happy old age is this: at all costs and hazards guard the 
integrity of the spiritual optic nerve; nourish and develop 
by exercise the faculty of religious sensation. He who 
by sin cuts a bloody gash in that nerve wili soon come 
to blindness, and think that there is no longer a God in 
the sky. 


THE BIBLE NOT A BOOK OF SCIENCE’ 


How, then, can we reconcile the first chapter of Gene- 
sis with modern science and evolution? We simply do 
not try to reconcile them. A moment’s thought will con- 
vince us that there were, as we have secon, two possible 
methods open if there was to be a divine revelation to 
man. One would be a perfect, final, infallible compen- 
dium of universal knowledge let down from heaven in a 
finished and perfect book. But supposing such a book 
were written in terms of modern science, about electrons, 
relativity, radium, the nebular hypothesis, etc. Of what 
possible moral and spiritual use would it have been to 


1 By Sherwood Eddy in the pamphlet, Science and Religion. 


PUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 293 


men during the last five thousand years, or in any age? 
It would have been incomprehensible and impractical. 
Even if it were written in terms of modern twentieth 
century science it would be out of date in a few years, 
not necessarily because it would be untrue, but inade- 
quate. 

If, on the other hand, man must learn by gradual 
progress in education and discipline, the only other al- 
ternative to the above would seem to be that of a gradual, 
progressive revelation on the principle “I have many 
things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” 
If we turn to the first chapter of the Bible we read: “In 
the beginning—God!” More than thirty times in this 
chapter God is referred to as the author of all. Here is 
the divinely inspired spiritual truth that it is God’s world 
and that in it He has a purpose of good. Then we read 
on through that opening poem containing a beautiful pic- 
ture of a world described as created in six days, each 
with its evening and morning. As we contrast this state- 
ment with those of certain other sacred books describing 
the world as hatched out of a golden egg, in seven round 
continents and seven concentric seas of milk, melted but- 
ter, etc., we see the simple grandeur of the Biblical nar- 
rative. But in no sense is it scientific and by no conceiv- 
able stretch of the imagination can it truly be made so. 
The Bible is a marvelous book of poetry, prose, history, 
geography, cosmogony and a hundred other things, but 
for none of these things was it written. Its one central 
purpose was that believing, we might have life; to so re- 
veal God to man in a revelation culminating in Jesus 
Christ, that we might have life in Him. To force it to 
do duty as science, history, geography, astronomy, geol- 
ogy, etc., is to repeat the catastrophe of those who have 
opposed science by Scripture from the days of Augustine 
to the present. 

Let us, therefore, gladly receive the revelation of 
God’s truth equally in His word and in His world, in 


204 SELECTED’ ARTICLES 


religion and in science. We shall find one vast, mighty, 
majestic process culminating in the cross and resurrec- 
tion of Jesus Christ and in the Kingdom of God as a new 
social order. Thus through all the ages one increasing 
purpose runs, and love is found creation’s final law. 
Thus like the author of the Hebrews, “receiving a king- 
dom that cannot be shaken,’ we accept God’s truth 
through the gradual, developing, evolutionary revelation 
of Himself in religion and science alike. 


JOINT STATEMENT UPON THE REUA TIO 
OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION, BY RELIGIOUS 
LEADERS AND SCIENTISTS’ 


We, the undersigned, deeply regret that in recent 
controversies there has been a tendency to present science 
and religion as irreconcilable and antagonistic domains of 
thought, for in fact they meet distinct human needs, and 
in the rounding out of human life they supplement rather 
than displace or oppose each other. 

The purpose of science is to develop, without preju- 
dice or preconception of any kind, a knowledge of the 
facts, the laws and the processes of nature. The even 
more wmportant task of region, on the other hand, is to 
develop the consciences, the ideals, and the aspirations of 
mankind. Each of these two activities represents a deep 
and vital function of the soul of man, and both are 
necessary for the life, the progress, and the happiness of 
the human race. 

It is a sublime conception of God which is furnished 
by science, and one wholly consonant with the highest 
ideals of religion, when it represents Him as revealing 
Himself through countless ages in the development of 
the earth as an abode for man and in the age-long 


1 Prepared by Dr. Robert A. Millikan, director of the Norman _ Bridge 
Laboratory of Physics, Pasadena, Cal. The statement appeared in Science. 
n.s. 57: 630-1. June 1, 1923. Also in Review of Reviews. 68: 88-9. July, 
1923. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 295 


inbreathing of life into its constituent matter, culminat- 
ing in man with his spiritual nature and all his God-like 
powers. 

Partial list of signers. Scientists: Charles D. Walcott, 
geologist, president of the National Academy of 
Sciences, president of the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science, and head of the Smithsonian 
Institution of Washington; Henry Fairfield Osborn, 
paleontologist, president of the American Museum of 
Natural History, New York; Edwin Grant Conklin, zo- 
ologist, head of the department of Zoology, Princeton 
University; James Rowland Angell, psychologist, presi- 
dent of Yale University; John Merle Coulter, botanist, 
head of the department of Botany, University of Chica- 
go; Michael I. Pupin, physicist and engineer, professor of 
Electromechanics and director of Phoenix Research Lab- 
oratory, Columbia University; William James Mayo, 
surgeon, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and 
Research, Rochester, Minnesota; William Wallace 
Campbell, astronomer, director of Lick Observatory and 
president-elect of the University of California; Robert 
A. Millikan, physicist, director of Norman Bridge Lab- 
oratory of Physics, Pasadena, California; William 
Henry Welch, pathologist, director of the School of Hy- 
giene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 
Baltimore; John C. Merriam, paleontologist, president of 
the Carnegie Institution of Washington. 

Religious leaders: Bishop William Lawrence, Episco- 
palian, Bishop of Massachusetts, Boston; Bishop William 
Thomas Manning, Episcopalian, New York City; Bishop 
Joseph H. Johnson, Episcopalian, Bishop of Los Angeles, 
California; Dr. Henry van Dyke, Presbyterian, preacher 
and poet, Princeton, New Jersey; President James Gore 
King McClure, Presbyterian, McCormick Theological 
Seminary, Chicago; President Clarence A. Barbour, Bap- 
tist, Rochester Theological Seminary, Rochester, New 
York; President Ernest D. Burton, Baptist theologian, 


2096 SELECTED ARTICLES 


University of Chicago; President Henry Churchill King, 
Congregationalist, Oberlin Graduate School of Theology, 
Oberlin, Ohio; Bishop Francis John McConnell, Meth- 
odist, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 


THE INFLUENCE OF SCIENCE ON 
Crit LIGAND Ly i4 


God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him 
in spirit and in truth.”—JOHN 4:24. 


It is a commonplace that all religions, even though 
their formularies and sacred books seem to guarantee 
absence of change, are constantly modified. Unless re- 
ligion is moribund, it is dynamic and not static. It is a 
living process within the spirit of man; and, as such, it 
is profoundly affected by the ideas and emotions of the 
community in which it exists. Religious thought and 
feeling alike are influenced, for good or ill, by contem- 
porary political, social and intellectual movements. In 
the domain of politics, for instance. Christianity was, in 
medieval times, held to justify the claim of ecclesiastics 
to control secular princes. Subsequently it was re- 
garded as a bulwark of the divine right of kings. Some 
now believe it to sanction the divine right of democracy. 
It would be easy to collect many such examples of the 
way in which Christianity has taken color from its en- 
vironment. Notoriously, in the domain of ethics, it has 
sometimes been disastrously affected by the spirit of the 
age. There have thus resulted bewildering paradoxes in 
which cynics, like Gibbon, have rejoiced. 

But today I would emphasize the gain to Christianity 
which has come from secular progress external to itself. 
In the second century of the Christian era there was pro- 
nounced ethical progress in the Roman Empire. In part, 
doubtless, this was due to the rise of Christianity; but 

1 By Ernest William Barnes, Sc.D., F.R.S. Canon of Westminster 
Abbey, London. Sermon preached in Liverpool Cathedral in connection 


with the meeting of the British Association. Christian Work. 116: 12-14. 
January 5, 1924. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 207 


it was a wide movement for which that religion can by 
no means claim the whole credit. The ethical uplift 
showed itself among classes untouched by Christian be- 
liefs. It thus did much to foster the spread of the reli- 
gion of Christ, for the seed fell on prepared soil. Thir- 
teen centuries later another secular movement invigo- 
rated Christian thought. I need not insist on the effect 
which the humanism of the Renaissance had on the 
Christian faith. As all know, it led to Reformation and 
counter-Reformation; to religious changes destined to 
be as pefmanent and valuable as they were extensive. 
But especially during the last century there has been a 
movement of human thought as influential and as valu- 
able as that of Renaissance humanism. The assumptions 
and methods of science have affected the whole outlook 
of educated men. In particular those branches of science 
which are concerned with the domains of physics and 
biology have radically changed our conceptions both of 
the structure of the visible universe and also of the de- 
velopment of life upon this earth. The effect of the 
scientific movement, alike on organized religion and on 
private faith, has been prodigious. Under any circum- 
stances, it would have been far-reaching. But, unfor- 
tunately, representative Christian leaders, with the eager 
support of their communions, opposed the new scientific 
conceptions as they appeared. Science was then com- 
pelled to fight for autonomy on its own territory, and, as 
Dr. Hobson says in his recently published Gifford Lec- 
tures, the result has been a prolonged struggle, “in which 
theology has lost every battle.” As a consequence it 1s 
now widely believed by the populace that Christianity 
itself has been worsted. 

At least a generation must pass cee it is generally 
recognized that, with regard to religion, science 1s neu- 
tral. Educated men know that the traditional presenta- 
tion of the Christian faith must be shorn of what 
have become mythological accretions. But Christianity 


208 SELECTED ARTICLES 


resembles a biological organism with a racial future. In 
the struggle for existence it gains strength and power by 
utilizing its environment. It seeks both freedom from 
old limitations and increased mastery of hostile forces. 
Amid all change its essential character is preserved, for 
it rests on historical facts combined with permanent in- 
tuitions and continually repeated experiences of the hu- 
man spirit. Because men are constrained by their very 
nature to believe that goodness and truth express the 
inner spiritual character of the universe; because the 
Christ of the gospels continues to be their ideal man; be- 
cause men’s search for spiritual reality is rewarded by a 
sense of the presence of God; because that presence con- 
veys what they can best express as peace and joy in 
Christ; because they find in the teaching of Jesus con- 
firmation and explanation of their richest experiences 
and highest guide and strength, Master and Saviour— 
for such reasons men are drawn to Him and call them 
selves by His name. Such reasons, moreover, have al- 
ways been fundamental. We find them, in their full sim- 
plicity, in the earliest preaching of Christianity; in the 
letters of St. Paul and in that mystical treatise, written 
by his greatest follower, which we call the Gospel ac- 
cording to St. John. I do not suggest that all members 
of Christian communions have gained for themselves 
certainty reached by personal spiritual illumination. 
Capacity to gain and use the highest quality of religious 
understanding is rare. The great pioneers, whether in 
science or religion, are few. Men usually accept both 
scientific and religious truth at second hand. The expert 
speaks with the accent of what seems to us to be unmis- 
takable authority. We make such imperfect tests as 
we are able to apply to his teachings, and perforce rest 
content. 

We must never forget that all human activity, and 
not merely those aspects which we call science and relli- 
gion, rests upon unproved and unprovable assumptions. 
The existence of such assumptions is often ignored. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 299 


They are there, none the less. Often, lazily and hazily, 
we conceal them under the term “common sense.” Faith, 
however, is a necessity of existence. Zealots sometimes 
have contended, and still contend, that there is a moral 
value in blind faith. But the modern world, so far as 
it has fallen under the sway of scientific method, de- 
mands that faith shall be reasonable and not blind. 

In science we build upon the assumption that the 
processes of nature can be represented by schemes that 
are, to us, rational. There is, we postulate, a unity be- 
tween nature’s processes and the working of the human 
mind. The address given this year by the President of 
the British Association shows how extraordinarily fruit- 
ful this assumption has proved to be. But, when we con- 
sider the vast domains of science which still remain to 
be explored, we must grant that the rationality of the 
universe remains a postulate of reasonable faith. As we 
pass from science to philosophy and religion we have to 
assume the existence of a universal mind in order to 
bind together the sequences of phenomena which science 
observes and describes. Then, as the basis of religious 
faith, we further assume that the values which we in- 
stinctively deem supreme, express the quality of this 
mind to whom all natural process is due. We thus assert 
that goodness, beauty and truth are not private values of 
humanity. Just as there is a unity between the human 
mind and the processes of nature—a unity which makes 
science possible—so there is, we maintain, a unity be- 
tween the moral and esthetic judgments of the human 
spirit and the God to whom that spirit owes its creation. 
Alike through the processes of nature and through the 
values which He has thus revealed, God reveals Himself. 
Man, we must believe, fulfils his destiny by loyalty to this 
revelation. The man of science shows such loyalty in 
his pursuit of truth—a pursuit often followed with an 
ardor and devotion which are essentially religious. The 
religious philosopher, the theologian at his best, serves 
God as he seeks to show that man’s existence would be 


300 DELECTED VARTICLES 


irrational were not eternal life the reward and goal of 
earth’s struggles. And every religious man gives similar 
service as he tries so to mould his life in obedience to the 
divine will that he finds spiritual peace. “Blessed are the 
pure in heart, for they shall see God,” is one of the most 
pregnant of the Master’s sayings. It is a fact that, by 
loyalty to the highest ideals implanted within us, we ex- 
perience the certainty that nothing can separate us from 
the love of God which was in Christ Jesus. 

In putting these considerations before you I have 
drawn no fanciful picture of the parallelism between 
religion and science. The different processes of the hu- 
man mind, thought, will and feeling cannot be decisively 
sundered. As a consequence, the search for truth made 
by men of science has in our own time profoundly af- 
fected our religious outlook. Science has not merely 
created a new cosmogony against which, as a background, 
religion must be set. But as the character of its postu- 
lates and the extent of its limitations have become more 
clear science has given us a new conception of what we 
mean by reasonable faith. In so doing, it has strikingly 
altered the way in which we approach religion. Some 
old modes of argument and their attendant dogmas have 
rapidly become obsolete. A great gulf has opened be- 
tween constructive and merely defensive types of theol- 
ogy. Among religious communions there is, in conse- 
quence, much confusion, some bitterness, fear of change 
combined with recognition of its necessity. The direct 
influence of science and its more obvious triumphs are 
known to all. The earth is not the center of the uni- 
verse; its age must be measured by hundreds of millions 
of years; man upon it is the derivative of lower forms of 
life. No orthodox theologian, in classical or medieval 
times, held or would have dared to assert such facts. 
Henceforth they must find their place in any dogmatic 
scheme of faith. But there is more to be said. The in- 
direct influence of scientific method, its patient induction, 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 301 


its readiness to admit divergent conceptual representa- 
tions of observed facts, its absence of exaggeration, its 
hostility to evasive language, and, above all, its abhor- 
rence of argument which pretends to be free, but is 
pledged to reach assigned conclusions—this influence 
has not yet made itself fully felt. Theological thought, 
which claims to be scientific and is still widely accepted, 
preserves bad traditions, The work of the best contem- 
porary theologians is free from blame. But to anyone fa- 
miliar with the scrupulous honesty of modern scientific 
research the dogmatic inconsequence of much current re- 
ligious apologetic is painful. For this reason young men 
and women who have had a scientific training at our uni- 
versities often complain bitterly that they cannot get ade- 
quate religious teaching. They are by no means insensi- 
ble of the importance and value of religion. Often they 
are profoundly attracted no less by the teachings of 
Christ than by His character. They have no more desire 
for undogmatic religion than for hazy science. But they 
demand that religious dogmas shall be taught with the 
same frankness, the same readiness to admit progress 
through change, the same absence of elaborate and un- 
necessary complication, as they are accustomed to get in 
scientific instruction. Especially do they resent the use: 
of archaic language which they suspect, not always un- 
justly, to be used as a cloak beneath which awkward 
problems are concealed. As the influence of the methods 
of scientific investigation increases, the dissatisfaction to 
which I have alluded will spread. There is only one way 
in which accredited religious teachers can overcome it. 
They must use scientific method. They must avoid, 
whatever the cost, the snare of obscurantism. 

At the present time we suffer from what I feel forced 
to regard as an unfortunate development in the religious 
history of England. A century ago the dominant type 
of English religion was evangelical. It laid fundamen- 
tal stress on spiritual illumination, on the witness to Christ 


302 SELECTED: ARTICLES 


of the Divine Spirit working in men as they seek to know 
God. The language used had at times the over-emphasis 
which is common in devotional literature. But men 
spoke of realities which they had experienced. That 
their convictions were genuine their good works abun- 
dantly showed. Their faith was a power. Unfortu- 
nately, it was joined to a cosmology which was fated to 
be destroyed by the progress of science. The ravages 
made in their scheme by geology were already ominous in 
the year 1823. The faith, it was felt, was in danger. Wis- 
dom pointed to the acceptance of new scientific truths. 
But it is given to but few to “greet the unseen with a 
cheer.’’ So the Tractarians, the religious reformers who 
then arose, men of piety and ability, turned to the past 
for safety. They resuscitated Catholicism, a vast elabo- 
ration of Christ’s teaching, derived from many sources 
during the decline of classical civilization, and redevel- 
oped on the basis of Aristotle’s philosophy during the 
middle'ages. Their action was a jump out of the frying 
pan into the fire, for the system which they embraced not 
only contained the cosmology now repudiated by edu- 
cated men, but was also a synthesis of religious ideas of 
pagan origin combined with philosophic concepts now ob- 
solete. English religion is still struggling with this bur- 
den, and, as I see the matter, no healthy reconciliation 
between science and organized Christianity is possible 
until it is cast aside. Let us admit that the Oxford move- 
ment has done good in adding beauty to worship. Among 
many clergy whom it influenced it produced a high stand- 
ard of devotion and hard work. But in the background, 
ever more definite, is a conflict of ideas. When that con- 
flict is over a new phase of English religion will begin. 
As I have indicated, I believe that we shall regain the 
evangelicalism of men like Wesley and Simeon, but it will 
be combined with that outlook on the world which mod- 
ern science has constructed. 

Men of science can do much to help the community 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 303 


during the period of transition through which we are 
now passing. Their reverence for truth can be made an 
inspiration of especial value to pious souls. Among men 
of science there is the moral austerity without which the 
finest intellectual work is seldom, if ever, achieved. Dur- 
ing the last generation, moreover, they have shown a 
steadily increasing sympathy with religion, an enhanced 
appreciation of the unique power of Christianity, at its 
best, to serve the human race, to foster spiritual progress 
while preserving spiritual freedom. I would urge all men 
of science whom my words may reach to take every op- 
portunity to set forth their religious ideals, to show how, 
in their own minds. Christianity and science interact. 
Personally, I think it unreasonable to demand that their 
language should be orthodox. The great master of my 
thinking is Hort, the only theologian of the nineteenth 
century who began with a thorough scientific training. 
And Hort said: Progress in theology must come “by 
perilous use and perilous reform.” The religious sin- 
cerity of able men with trained minds is of value in it- 
self. And, I am convinced, the essentials of Christianity 
will survive by their own inherent strength. A faith 
worth having needs no artificial protection. Individually 
each one of us may make mistakes: in the end truth will 
prevail through honest argument. 

The great American divine, Phillips Brooks, laid 
down the principle to which all who speak of religion 
should be loyal. “Say nothing which you do not believe 
to be true because you think it may be helpful. Keep 
back nothing which you know to be true because you 
think it may be harmful.” Already it is becoming more 
usual to ask laymen of eminence to speak on religious 
topics, to preach in places of worship. I eagerly desire 
the custom to spread. In the religious life of the na- 
tion we need all the contributions that religious men can 
make, and not least at the present time do we need the 
religious’ witness of men of science. 


{| ' 


hy Mar : Doi, “5 7 Ch 7 
‘ae : i) ee ey i ) yarn eS 7 ' 
be ee RRA) et meee Re Sat 


ia 






rh 


ay nu ra a PY sit ete 
lode Le: ¥ i = A. 
ae Yh ve Pe ri) 
ech waa ny 


Beye ae 






















Ath 
ae ivity Rainy nee Me wisi oat hie reat wa t 
po 0, set tind el cetetee e isha ‘irvisteey i} ef dean 
., OPES React niet i 38) cree Nes eae tS. By sibel 
‘ hae (its ‘sewits FA 969 Hh 84 athe g thie) hacer oe ech’ 
Denes Uh sheltiod ae disistaleeng a Be seh, ne 


t *yapth ey Py ' : 
any ae eee a Gi ees Lrwiy Bi Me SEER Peg rt 


oo 


‘i i : 
reeks! Rew TUE NBM Ie EAs BOR BP eee ele at Gs ea Rule He 


, 4 > ate aE 
er Vas | tA 47 OF hry cy ay et SP pe eee Pile aire Ceaid i 


* , Lo 


: 44 mie ®. ohare tine! 
PeEMEY hy 82S) ASN * 9 atti Caer - ,. et 9 
M ; ; ‘2 : +: “ = “ d a 4 . 
IIOP See Sore Dal ee ere." Prarmens ray te: 
7 4 
. » a 2. oP -h) ‘ J a i! ‘ a 7 <a i 
PSE Santas <a bit fae af rt erm SP Tf Fy EE i Pi 
rh ote hears? Ph re STL Mie eee “nT Vit 


(est atet Sah Vie disso sis alt oleae 
Bigatist pivent ett bet be bess ret ark aee bier TSS nt teiors) 
ee? ar Pele sg eter glh CAR. Veg oe) Iie gee 
hh. dpe) Say ys Witrerast eat iat ty/ she het at ia 
7 helo pignl aie Bt hap eet ser Takes tt ya ro s49 ahSe TSN 
Ait Palit hs BER aes Sih hoe ates ae Rieke 
| AA MOREE FT tee anceaitans ARS ily iY. 7 Soles 
Lr ate PLY Be i Taved. a me hee chal Lith es es ty r 

| Sie Sciss tis er pe ba 13? 

aE Bute Pat ere ey aeiGgia 

aay ‘ Nase hid: “pty Pomel eS tego EP) dh i Hite ti siie 
me ee Aba! Dos alae tion Hie iiss 4 OT ptt Ree ‘? 
; a ote eee * htt Gee GPU SY shin cine He Tare La E sth 
et > SREY I Make SiGe anata tats i wun eid Ae 
hoe TL erate | bie, eit aE Wrens! “owt th Fy 5 , 
OTe Gare th OF Meee A AF tort fore eek ‘ite cine 
nf eyoul a ed Pas Bega" "a% ae: sy meets: net baci) fale fees hoa 
iA RC ATC s ate wil Og Meth Tae eb Ais Rec at hort r a 
ea Ni i ener aseh de Tugoeta Re Bahk Meg tal it et hat hauiyet Oe 
CIAa BO at lc cel tee patsy © Rear tat. ‘hey: Hea Ses 
St: Dist poeta © Opie: {AsS8qyadl is Hye 


AY re moa |v ane ge Ra ce Sony iy by, ‘Naat ah 


























at 


- 


a 
¥ wiht var 
2 as 
44% ix » 
% et r) 


Part IV 


MIRACLES; THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND 
THE BODILY RESURRECTION 





A. MIRACLES IN GENERAL 


A’ FAMOUS EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ATTACK 
ON MIRACLES * 


... Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen 
in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that 
aman, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden; 
because such a kind of death, though more unusual than 
any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. 
But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; 
because that has never been observed in any age or coun- 
try. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience 
against every miraculous event, otherwise the event 
would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform ex- 
perience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and 
full proof from the nature of the fact, against the exis- 
tence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, 
or the miracle be rendered credible, but by an opposite 
proof, which is superior. 

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim 
worthy of our attention) “that no testimony is sufficient 
to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such 
a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than 
the fact, which it endeavors to establish ; and even in that 
case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the 
superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that de- 
gree of force, which remains, after deducting the in- 
ferior.’ When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man 
restored to life, I immediately consider with myself. 
whether it be more probable, that this person should 
either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he 


1By David Hume. Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. 
D. 115-16. . 


308 SELECTED ARTICLES 


relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one 
miracle against the other; and according to the superior- 
ity, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and al- 
ways reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his 
testimony would be more miraculous, than the event 
which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend 
to command my belief or opinion. 


A SIMILAR MODERN CONTENTION’ 


It seems clear that completely isolated exceptions to 
the laws of nature could not be adequately established by 
the kind of historical evidence to which the believers in 
such suspensions appeal, even if that evidence were far 
stronger than it is. 


MIRACLES NOT ESSENTTALESTO 
Cie Wka beaks ad MEN 


I conclude, therefore, that the fate of Jesus and His 
gospel is in no way bound up with the fate of miracle. 
It is evident, even if naturalism is to control men’s views 
of all history, that the really great things in Christ and 
His gospel abide. His teaching abides, His character is 
safe, His spiritual leadership is unquestioned. He is 
still our Prophet, Priest, and King. His risen and glo- 
rified life in God remains attested by the witness of life. 
Only the fringe of His evangelical career is torn away. 
We lose the stilling of the storm, the walking on the sea, 
the feeding of the multitudes, the raising of the widow’s 
only son and the dead Lazarus. We lose something, no 
doubt, and the loss, if it should become inevitable, will 
be painful to many. But even here there is evidence of 
the greatness of our Lord. That He wrought wonders 

1 By Dean Rashdall, quoted in Lake, Historical Evidence for the 


Resurrection of Jesus Christ. p. 268-9. 
2 By George A. Gordon. Religion and Miracle. p. 130-1. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 309 


upon the physical life of men is beyond dispute. That 
He gained access to the souls of the plain people by His 
marvelous power as the healer of physical distress is not 
open to question. ‘That he took the imagination of the 
people captive is attested by the tradition of wonders that 
came to invest His career. To all serious minds, part of 
the evidence of the power of Jesus Christ will always be 
the epic of miracle inbedded in His career. How great 
that epic is, it would be difficult to say, of what divine 
things it is the reflection, men may one day become noble 
enough to discover. 
























’ Bai wide bewrcut ube 
Baws: i as bate NON Goh 4 cei | 
ys . dart Te ws panes ee re iif 15% 
+m Y ‘ty 0 Figg 3 fsppny att ROOP aA 3 eae 
Bhi te MS ecatrage! As! a eae Nan df aig 1 ages if wig 
ne beta “ ee “aay Bihan NR? ? ee | our co me & 
ae alavate Wive $rti? os watt Fave ore With ES ag ngs 


ark WOES mestiy akd ie "iia aT a5 tity, 44 


we Lee * Scns 78) eA ae 4c tie 7 tis ity +i] vitae On res > 
Ste ic (MCh Ny cee shpn t Spret in vib iar hah MOPED. A Pi) 
Pia es | aay ra So a OT ig 


*. : 's > 
i i ,>T i t! ey j vy Z c * 
“i q s, . > 
\ ny 5 ; i ' : ye" Habis 
, : >’ ‘ wrt; Mm 4 7 
oF 5 
‘ j } 4 ‘ i 7 , 
. *: " 5 
- > t 
: et 4 ‘ r. bes ; 
a Po ele sk Ge Va, ) 
"Ot a ‘ ( 
7 _ ’ 
' I ’ * 
a, ‘ ; cP are om : 
4 ° 
‘ - » 
; | iJ , » : - ee‘ vas 
. 
, : ' : Pats tet Lb es LAM 
Re 2 
PS J + > ee Ca a) ie 85 I ' 2s ag 
7 P 
j ~ 7 bs x ‘ ‘Le ‘ a f soy 
x ‘ a 
ve tat . aa 4 eee 
’ 
| n 4 4 é ‘ p Fuh : Ly 
At 5 - 
_ o. ? 3 { a \ 7 ‘ of » 
‘ 4 % 
ul °¢ f ay . “ ys ne {race rs er 7 r 
: * 
ya to ‘eh , 
yo as : . r - i M4 ihe wes 
Sw 4) , ‘ oy , pe 5 
Sle We : he ‘ ry cue “ay wae, Fae 424 st pin, : 
X . \ 
=, Z oe 5 * . ; aL ‘ 
. Maney erat ke Ea ae Ps, Cer ie di ~ Afess roe ee 
1 
‘ M \ 
a Laie é % oo ¢ <7." bets re » PPT ty 4 ' ved 
ve 4 ay 4s > ai rie af i, ¥ 7 
ds lq to} Pas ee es at ar = LV ‘a a ‘ fy ane a < ’ ny + 
<a" F ; ‘ ‘| ae, 
, 's ree ery 1 u i ae 4 fs a on 
‘ f ‘ od 
’ ‘ ( r 4 ; i o : 
a Meee ee yc ia the z hast ipa cae unites 
y =e five oF ively DP, . i? , ‘A 
“wy . i. 
a, a Begs: ia eecks i “ip? oy ua sesabe’ sah yore Ties 
i) < és : 8 4 an 
e Jas o- ° - : rh j = j _“ oe Senos a 
he \ 4 ja; >. - 7 . - =’ 


Be} THE VIRGIN “BIRTEL, 


WHY WE BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF 
CHRIST * 


The reason your attention is called to this subject is 
because at present it is the focal point of the enemy’s at- 
tack against Christianity. Contemporary conditions in 
the world make certain subjects of defense more urgent 
at one time than another, and this is the particular sub- 
ject for today. Therefore we say: 

1. We believe in the virgin birth of Christ because 
we believe the Bible to be true, that 1s to say, credible in 
its statements of fact. 

But some one may say, is not that begging the ques- 
tion? How do we know the Bible to be credible in its 
statements of fact? The reply to this was given on an- 
other occasion, but we may here say that Christianity, 
which is synonymous with the Bible, is a historic religion, 
the only religion in the world of which that may be said 
in the same sense. Christianity is based on historic evi- 
dence. What the Apostle John says of its Divine 
Founder may be said of it, “that which we have heard, 
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked 
upon, and our hands have handled” (I John 1:1). In 
other words, any one sufficiently interested may ascertain 
for himself how the Christian church originated, whether 
Jesus Christ arose from the dead and whether, such be- 
ing the case, He ever authenticated the Bible which was 
before His day. 

As a matter of fact, the historic evidence of Chris- 
tianity on which the faith of our fathers rested is as 


1 See also “Mr. Bryan on the Five Points.” p. 32-9. 
2 By James M. Gray, D.D. A Bible conference address, Reprinted 
by permission of the author and holder of the copyright. 


312 SBLECTEDTARTICEES 


strong and valuable today as it was in their day. Were 
all our fathers fools? Had they no interest in investiga- 
ting this question, and being nearer its source did they 
not have opportunities for doing it? Ory will it be said 
that they were lacking the intelligence? 

Moreover, there is evidence for the credibility of the 
Bible now possessed which was denied our fathers. Evi- 
dence from archeological research and from the contem- 
porary history of the world. Professor Robert Dick 
Wilson, of Princeton, to whom reference was made on 
the other occasion referred to, is almost a living embodi- 
ment of this evidence, whose forty-five vears given to the 
subject, and whose phenomenal acquaintance with orig- 
inal sources gives potency to his declaration that no man 
living knows enough to assail the truth of the Old Testa- 
ment. But if the Old Testament be true there can be no 
question about the New Testament. And yet the evi- 
dence for the New Testament is quite independent of that 
for the Old, and so strong and clear that if it be rejected, 
then facts have lost their value and no human testimony 
can be accepted for any historical event of an antiquity 
anywhere approaching the apostolic age. 

2. We believe in the virgin birth of Christ because 
the Bible, credible as to its statements of fact, contains a 
statement of that fact. Indeed it contains the statement 
twice over, and from two sources and two different points 
of view. Familiar as you may be with those statements 
it is pertinent to repeat them again. The first is the an- 
nunciation to Joseph in Matthew 1: 18-25: 

Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise. When as his mother 
Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she 
was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing 
to make her a public example, was minded to put her away 
Lab while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of 
the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou 
son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for 
that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 


And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name 
JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 313 


Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was 
spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a 
son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being in- 
terpreted is, God with us. 

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the 
Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn 
son: and he called his name JESUS. 


The second is the annunciation to Mary in Luke 1: 
26-35: 


And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God 
unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 

To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of 
the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 

And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art 
highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among 
women. 

And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and 
cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast 
found favor with God. 

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth 
a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: 
an ae Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father 

avid: 

And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of 
his kingdom there shall be no end. 

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I 
know not a man? 

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost 
shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over- 
shadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born 
of thee shall be called the Son of God. 


3. We believe in the virgin birth of Christ because 
these statements of fact as to the authenticity or genuine- 
ness, have never been questioned from the beginning. 

We do not say the fact itself has never been ques- 
tioned, for if such were not the case there would be no 
need for this defense, but the authenticity or genuineness 
of the record of the fact is unimpeached. 

We mean by that that no copy of the Gospel of 
Matthew and no copy of the Gospel of Luke has ever 
* omitted it. There are thousands upon thousands of manu- 
scripts, and also many versions of the New Testament 


314 SELECTED; ARTICLES 


carrying us back to the middle of the second century of 
the Christian era, but every one of them contains, and al- 
ways contained, these records of the virgin birth just as 
we have them in our English Bible today. 

Furthermore, the trustworthiness as a historian of at 
least one of the two writers, Luke, is now placed be- 
yond a reasonable doubt by contemporary evidence. The 
authority who has done this is Sir William Ramsay, 
D.C.L., in his “St. Paul, the Traveler,’ but especially in 
his later work, “The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the 
Trustworthiness of the New Testament.” 

I have not the time to tell the story of this remarkable 
scholar or to dwell on his qualifications for such a task. 
His works speak for themselves, however, and no unpre- 
judiced mind can consider the evidence he presents as to 
the trustworthiness of Luke, without sharing in his judg- 
ment that you may press the words of that evangelist far 
beyond those of any secular historian of the period, and 
find that they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest 
treatment, provided always that the critic knows the sub- 
ject on which he is discoursing, and that he does not ga 
beyond the limits of science and justice in what he says. 

4. We believe in the virgin birth of Christ because 
the predictions in the Old Testament prepare us to expect 
a miracle of some kind at His birth. 

Take, as an example, what is known as the “protevan- 
gelium,” the first promise of a Redeemer from sin found 
in the Bible. It is God’s penalty pronounced on the ser- 
pent, Satin’s representative in the temptation where He 
says: “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and 
between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, 
and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). Evangel- 
ical expositors of all the centuries have taught that the 
word “seed” in this case is not to be taken generally, or 
collectively for the generation of mankind, but “deter- 
minately and individually,’ as one of them expresses it, 
for that one seed, which is Christ (Gal. 3:16). So the. 
woman is not to be understood with relation to man, but 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 315 


particularly to that sex from which alone and immedi- 
ately that seed should come. 

And this first evangelical promise is followed by the 
prediction of the prophet Jeremiah millenniums after- 
ward. At chapter 31:22, he is pleading with backsliding 
Judah in the name of Jehovah and encouraging her to 
return to her first love with a promise of the Messiah, in 
these words: 


For the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman 
shall compass a man. 


That new creation of a man is new indeed, because 
thus wrought in a woman only, without a man, “a woman 
shall compass (enclose) a man.” 

“This interpretation of the prophet is ancient, literal 
and clear,” affirms the once Lord Bishop of Chester, John 
Pearson, D.D., in his classic “Exposition of the Apostles’ 
Creed.” “Whatsoever the Jews have invented to elude 
it,” he goes on to say, “is frivolous and forced.” If they 
make it anything else than a miraculous conception, they 
not only wrest the Scripture, but contradict the former 
part of the promise which makes the creation to be some- 
thing new, not something easy to perform, not something 
which is.often done. Bishop Pearson quotes the ancient 
rabbis as acknowledging this sense of the passage, and 
applying the words definitely to the Messiah. 

But if to any this prophecy of Jeremiah seems ob- 
scure, what of that of the prophet Isaiah (7:14) which 
is cited by Matthew in the chapter before quoted? His 
words in encouragement to Judah, are: 


Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call 
His name Immanuel. 


The Jews have tried to avoid the force of this Scrip- 
ture by saying that the Hebrew word does not really 
mean a virgin, and that in any event it found fulfilment in 
the birth of Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, to which latter 
wicked king the promise was originally given. 


316 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Unfortunately for this argument, however, it did not 
see the light until after the Gospels of Matthew and Luke 
had been given to the world. Prior to that time, the Jews 
had accepted the ordinary meaning of the word and had 
so translated it into the Septuagint Version, for example, 
two or three hundred years before Christ was born. 
Moreover, as to Hezekiah, while he was indeed the son 
of Ahaz, yet the latter “reigned but sixteen years in Jeru- 
salem” (2 Kings 16:2), while Hezekiah who succeeded 
him, “was twenty and five years old when he began to 
reign’ (2 Kings 18:2). He, therefore, was born several 
years before Ahaz was king and consequently could not 
have been conceived when this promised sign was given. 

The Jews plainly show by these blunders that so far 
as they had any knowledge, the promise was not fulfilled 
till Jesus came. And thus they cannot successfully deny 
that it belonged to Him, as indeed some of their ancient 
rabbis have confessed. 

5. We believe in the virgin birth of Christ because 
other and later declarations of the New Testament con- 
firm it. 

Compare, for example, the remarkable testimony of 
the Apostle John in the first chapter of his Gospel, verses 
1 and 14. 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with 


God, and the Word was God. 
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. 


Here the very same being who is declared to be God 
is also declared to have become incarnate. How could 
this have been accomplished without a biological miracle 
of some kind, and if such were the case, why not that 
miracle of which Matthew and Luke speak? 

And take again, Paul’s words in his letter to the 
Philippians (2:5-7): 

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; 


who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be 
equal with God; but made Himself of no reputation, and took 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 317 


upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness 
of men. 

Here the very same being who was in the form of 
God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, took 
upon Him the likeness of men. How could this have been 
accomplished without a biological miracle of some kind, 
and if such were the case, why not that miracle of which 
Matthew and Luke speak? 

To these very particular passages, add some of those 
perhaps not so well known. Paul’s words to the church 
at Galatia, for example: 

But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his 
Son, made of a woman, made under the law.—Gal. 4: 4. 

Or those of the inspired writer of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews: 

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he 
took on him the seed of Abraham.—Heb. 2:16. 

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice 


an offering thou wouldest not, but a body thou hast prepared 
me.—Heb. 10:5. 


The italicized words in these Scriptures are not de- 
scriptive of the birth of an ordinary being. Such an one 
is not ‘made of a woman” who “knew not a man,” as 
Mary said. Nor does He “take on him” the human na- 
ture, but is taken on by that nature. And surely such 
an one is not described in a pre-existent state, covenant- 
ing with His Creator concerning the particular purpose 
for which He is coming into the world and concerning 
the human body being prepared for Him in which to exe- 
cute it! Is there anything unreasonable about a virgin 
birth in such a case as this? 

6. We believe in the virgin birth of Christ because 
His unique life and character as recorded im the Gospels 
perfectly harmonize with and corroborate the miracle. 

To dwell only upon a single feature of His life and 
character, consider His sinlessness. Was He not the only 
being who could challenge His contemporaries with the 


318 SELECTED ARTICLES 


question, “Which of you convinceth me of sin?” Did 
not His enemies as well as His friends, testify to His sin- 
lessness? Did not their criticisms fall upon Him for His 
virtues rather than His faults? Did not Judas as well as 
Pilate declare that he found no fault in Him and confess 
that he had “betrayed innocent blood ?” 

It is true, however, that the strongest testimony to the 
sinlessness of Jesus is Himself. And this not so much 
in what He said or did as in what He did not say or do. 
“The pores of the soul are always open,” said Canon 
Liddon, “instinctively and unconsciously whether’a man 
will or whether he will not, the insignificance or the 
greatness of his inner life reveals itself.” That is to say, 
if Jesus had been aware of sin in His soul it must have 
shown itself somewhere in His life or speech. But was 
this ever true? 

What then shall we say to these things? Granted 
such a character, is not a miraculous birth not only rea- 
sonable, but is it not a necessary conclusion in such a 
case? Otherwise could Jesus have been born without sin 
any more than we? 


IT 


I pause at this point to consider one or two of the 
principal objections that are raised against the virgin 
birth of Christ. 

1. It is said, for example, that “virgin birth,’ re- 
ferring to it in general terms, is traditional, that there 
have been many so-called “virgin births.” Christians 
have come to believe in the virgin birth of Christ the 
objector would affirm, not because it is a historical fact, 
but because custom or usage has transmitted the idea, as 
an idea, from generation to generation. 


To believe in virgin birth as an explanation of great person- 
ality, [says one such objector], is one of the familiar ways in 
which the ancient world was accustomed to account for unusual 
superiority. According to the records of other faiths, Buddha, 
Zoroaster and LaoTse were all supernaturally born. That is to 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 319 


say, when a personality rose so high that men adored him, the 
ancient world attributed his superiority to some special divine 
influence in his generation, and they commonly phrased their 
faith in terms of miraculous birth. 

This is reverting to what the infidels, Porphyry and 
Celsus, were wont to say in the second and third centuries 
of the Christian era. They compared the accounts of the 
life and actions of Christ with the stories in the Greek 
and Roman mythologies and placed those accounts in the 
catalog of the pagan heroes and demi-gods. The reply 
to this objection is culmulative: 

(1) We admit the existence of such traditions, but 
they are explained just as similar traditions are explained 
concerning the creation, the fall of man and the deluge. 
This is to say, they are pagan echoes of the original 
promise in Eden concerning the seed of the woman who 
should bruise the serpent’s head. Thus they strengthen 
rather than weaken the claim of the virgin birth of 
Christ. 

Or, to express it in another way, quoting a personal 
letter of a friend: “The earliest revelations in the race 
demanded such a final divine revelation as that which Je- 
hovah gave us in the person of His son. The knowledge 
of this early revelation was so widespread in the race 
that men embodied it in their various thoughts of God by 
whatever names they called Him. These imperfect state- 
ments of the natural religions gave proof that such a rev- 
elation was necessary to the human heart and in accord- 
ance with the religious convictions of all men. These 
dark gropings after God coming to expression in an in- 
carnation in one form or another, demanded a perfect ex- 
pression at some time and somewhere. They are proofs, 
therefore, that such a final and perfect revelation would 
be made. And that it was made in Jesus Christ, we re- 
joice to believe.” 

(2) But in the second place, it should be borne in 
mind that these traditions do not correspond with Luke’s 
recital of the conception of the Virgin Mary by the Holy 


320 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Ghost. They are, rather, representations of gods coming 
down to earth and consorting with humankind in ways at 
once revolting and ridiculous. As an English author 
puts it, “The alleged virgin births are not virgin births at 
all, but angelic fornications which brought the old world 
to ruin (Gen. 6: 2,4) and formed the basis of all heathen 
mythology.” The thought is elaborated in a well-known 
volume of Professor James Orr, D.D. of Glasgow, on 
“The Virgin Birth of Christ,” while the chapter in Gen- 
esis showing the connection of the “sons of God” therein 
mentioned, with the fallen heroes of mythology has been 
treated somewhat at length in my own book, “Spiritism 
and the Fallen Angels.” 

(3) We should remember also that the virgin birth 
of Christ was published in the synoptic Gospels within 
thirty-five years after the resurrection of Christ and in 
the very place and among the very people where and 
among whom, the event itself was said to have occurred. 
Is there any parallel to that in the so-called incarnations 
of the founders of other religions? Are they thus his- 
torically verified? Is it not true, rather, that such stories 
of Buddha as at all resemble those of Christ arose long 
after Buddha’s death? Are there any Buddhist writings 
for more than two or three hundred years after his de- 
cease that make any claim of a virgin birth for him? 
Dr. Orr’s testimony as to this is very clear, and similar 
testimony is found in another modern work, Dr. Robert 
E. Speer’s, “The Light of the World.” 

(4) Finally, in the case of Jesus, men did not wait, 
nor did angels wait, until His “personality rose high” 
before they adored Him. On the contrary they adored 
Him while He was yet a babe lying in the manger. Or 
have we forgotten or do we make no account of the 
angel’s song, and the visit of the shepherds and the jour- 
ney of the wise men from the east? And do we find no 
argument in the prophesying of Simeon and Anna, or in 
the testimony of Elizabeth, Mary’s cousin, who acknowl- 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 321 


edged her, even before the birth of Jesus, as “the mother 
of my Lord?” Let us refresh our minds with the record 
of these things by reading Matthew 2: 1-10, Luke 1: 41- 
3 and Luke 2: 8-38. 

2. It is said that the virgin birth of Christ is unscien- 
tific, that there is nothing analogous to it in the organic 
world, just as if that were not an argument in its favor 
rather than against it! Such an objection recoils upon 
him who puts it forth, for who could assume that the vir- 
gin birth of Christ was natural and not supernatural? 
Such an objection bears equally against the bodily resur- 
rection of Christ and any other miraculous event in His 
earthly history. And we may go back farther still, for 
it bears equally against the creation of Adam out of the 
dust of the ground and of Eve out of the side of Adam. 
In other words, when we exclude the virgin birth of 
Christ because of its miraculous nature, we are bound to 
go further and exclude the idea of the miraculous alto- 
gether. And indeed, this is precisely what the destruc- 
tive critics most desire to do. 

But, furthermore in this connection let it be kept 
in mind, that there is only one branch of science that is 
entitled to raise a question about the virgin birth, and 
that is the science of biology. But ask biology whether it 
is not possible for a human individual to begin his organic 
existence according to the law of agamogenesis instead 
of gamogenesis, by some other process that is, than that 
which we know as marriage, and biology will be obliged 
to answer, Yes. And the biologist is thus obliged to an- 
swer whether he is a creationist or an evolutionist, 
whether he believes the record in Genesis or whether he 
does not. It is impossible to enlarge upon this thought in 
a brief compass, but any one wishing to see it carried fur- 
ther is recommended to read W. D. Thompson’s “The 
Christian Miracles and the Conclusions of Science,” 
chapter 13 (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh). 


322 SELECTED *ARTICHES 


III 


Let us pass from the objections to the virgin birth of 
Christ to consider what may be called an evasion of it as 
a Christian dogma. 

Quoting Professor Robert Alexander Webb, of the 
Kkentucky Presbyterian Seminary, “We are told by some 
that the dogma of the virgin birth of Christ is useless, 
Christianity is not affected by it whether true or false, it 
is a subject only for academic debate.” 

The person who can say this is an enigma. Either he 
is ignorant of what the Bible really teaches on the sub- 
ject, or else he is seriously defective in his reasoning 
powers. ‘To deny that the Bible is true or worthy of 
credit is an intelligible proposition ; but to admit that it is 
and deny that the dogma of the virgin birth of Christ is 
essential to the religion it reveals, is well-nigh incompre- 
hensible as a supposedly logical statement. 

1. Jt is essential to the credibility of the Bible itself. 
Discredit the Bible at this point and the way is open to 
discredit it at any point. If Moses, and Isaiah, and Jere- 
miah, and Matthew, and Luke, and John and Paul are 
wrong here, why not wrong anywhere that the human 
fancy may surmise? Discredit the Bible here, and it is 
opening a crevice in the dyke that never can be closed 
until the flood of unbelief sweeps away the whole fabric 
of Christianity. 

2. It is essential to the personality of Christ. He is 
“Immanuel,” God with us. He is the God-man, truly 
God and truly man, two natures in the one person. The 
Bible clearly reveals this, and the doctrine of an atone- 
ment makes it absolutely necessary. If He were not God 
and at the same time man, how could He suffer and die 
as the sinner’s substitute? And if He were not man and 
at the same time God, how could His sufferings and death 
avail to take away sin? And yet how could this twofold 
nature be predicated of Him without a biological miracle 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 323 


of some kind? In other words, how could there be an 
incarnation of the Godhead without a virgin birth? 

3. It is essential to His simlessness and hence His 
Saviourhood. This thought is not quite the same as the 
preceding, but nearly so. Had Christ descended from 
Adam by natural generation as all the rest of us have 
done, would He not have been a sinner as well as we? 
And if a sinner, would He not have required a Saviour 
as well as we? But where could His Saviour have been 
found, and by the same token, where could your Saviour 
have been found, or mine? 

But suffer a caution here. Recently an evangelical 
teacher was reported to have said: 

Only those who believe in Christ as God, in His virgin birth 
and in His resurrection—an irreducible minimum of Christian 
faith—will go to heaven, and those who deny any or all of these 
tenets will be lost and go to hell. 

Is there not an opportunity for a distinction in this 
matter? Is the non-belief of any dogma precisely the 
same as its denial or rejection? For example, may not a 
child accept Jesus Christ by faith and be saved, without 
knowing about the virgin birth? If indeed the dogma 
should be presented to him as part of the divine revela- 
tion so that it were understood, and he should then deny 
it or reject it, the situation would be different. But 
otherwise are we not at liberty to say that however es- 
sential to Christianity the dogma of the virgin birth may 
be, it is not equally essential to individual salvation? A 
perfect, consistent, all-around statement of what consti- 
tutes the Christian faith is one thing and the answer to 
“What must I do to be saved?” is another thing. 

As a test, this question was put to a dozen intelligent 
and devoted Christians not very long ago. Some of them 
were Bible students above the average, and two or three 
were qualified theologians. They were cautious in reply- 
ing, as became so serious a subject, but they were unani- 
mous in saying that while Jesus Christ “was conceived of 


324 SELECTED ARTICLES 


the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,” yet it was still 
possible to say as Paul said to the inquiring jailer, “Be- 
lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” 
(Acts 16:31). We should be very thankful for this. 
We should not minimize, much less deny, the doctrine of 
the virgin birth of Christ. We cannot do it, indeed, and 
be true to Him and to the Christian faith. But we should 
not make it harder for an enquiring soul to enter the 
kingdom of God than God Himself has done. 

I read God’s Word and find 

Great truths which far transcend my mind; 

And little do I know beside 

Of that so high, so deep and wide. 

This is my best theology, 


I know the Saviour died for me. 
—GEoRGE W. BETHUNE. 


THE VIRGIN BIR THES ob NTA: 


Men have always and everywhere judged that a 
supernatural man, doing a supernatural work, must 
needs have sprung from a supernatural source. If there 
had been nothing extraordinary in the coming of the 
Savior into the world, a discordant note would have been 
struck at this point in the “heterosoteric”’ Christianity of 
the New Testament, which would have thrown it in all 
its elements out of tune. To it, it would have been un- 
natural if the birth of the Savior had been natural, just 
because it itself in none of its elements is natural, but is 
everywhere and through all its structure, not, indeed, un- 
natural or contra-natural, but distinctively supernatural. 

... But something more than sinlessness in this sub- 
jective sense was requisite for the redemption up to 
which the incarnation leads. Assuredly no one, resting 
for himself under the curse of sin, could atone for the 
sin of others; no one owing the law its extreme penalty 
for himself could pay this penalty for others. And cer- 


1 By Professor B, B. Warfield. American Journal of Theology. 10: 25-9. 
January, 1906. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 325 


tainly in the Christianity of the New Testament every 
natural member of the race of Adam rests under the 
curse of Adam’s sin, and is held under the penalty that 
hangs over it. If the Son of God came into the world 
therefore ... specifically in order to save sinners, it was 
. imperatively necessary that he should become incarnate 
after a fashion which would leave him standing, so far 
as his own responsibility is concerned, outside that fatal 
entail of sin in which the whole natural race of Adam 1s 
involved. And that is as much as to say that the re- 
demptive work of the Son of God depends upon his 
supernatural birth. 


TELE VGN BIR THEN OT HS SEINT LAL 


Paul shows no knowledge of miraculous circum- 
stances connected with the birth of his Lord. For him 
the resurrection was the demonstration of the Lordship 
of Jesus (Rom. 1:4). Paul regarded Jesus simply as 
according to the flesh “of the seed of David” (Rom. 
lo, 9S), alld.as found in) tashion as/a man . (Phil 
2:8). When in Galatians (4:4) he says, “God sent 
forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law,” 
there is no more reason to think he refers to a miracu- 
lous conception than that such a reference was in mind 
in Job 14:1, “man that is born of woman is of few 
days and full of trouble.” 

The Johannine writings show equally little conscious- 
ness of any miraculous circumstances connected with the 
birth of Jesus. ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt 
among us” sets forth a most exalted conception of Jesus, 
but if the early chapters of Matthew and Luke had by 
accident been lost, as the last verses of Mark have been, 
John would afford no suggestion of a virgin birth. It is 
equally true that, having those early chapters of Matthew 
and Luke, we have no ground for supposing that they 


1 By Professor Rush Rhees, Rochester Theological Seminary. American 
Journal of Theology. 10: 18-20. January, 1906. 


326 SELECTED ARTICLES 


had any influence in the development of Johannine doc- 
trine. For the strongest statement of the incarnation is 
put forth as a truth demonstrated to the disciples by their 
daily experience with their Master, rather than by miracle 
exhibited in His birth: “The Word became flesh and 
dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory—glory as of . 
an only begotten from a Father—full of grace and truth” 
(lobowkal¢ect. 1 Johnpigdt sty. 

The Pe to the Hebrews dwells much on the dees 
trine of the incarnation, and argues therefrom the su- 
periority of the new revelation to that which preceded 
it, but it is difficult to think that the writer of that epistle 
could have been influenced by any tradition concerning 
a virgin birth when he wrote: “For verily He took not 
on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the 
seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved 
Him to be made in all points like unto His brethren” 
(Hepa Zelay: 

It is noteworthy also that the author of the second 
gospel gave no hint of a virgin birth, and that the first 
and third gospels are equally free from any influence by 
that tradition after the first chapter of Matthew and the 
first chapter of Luke—excepting the reference to Mary 
as Joseph’s “espoused wife” in Luke 2:5, and the phrase 
“as was supposed” at the beginning of the geneology in 
Luke 3:23. So complete is this freedom from influence 
by the virgin birth tradition that even in the story of 
the visit to the temple (Luke 2:48) Mary reproaches 
Jesus, saying, “Thy father and I have sought thee sor- 
rowing ;’ while in Matthew, the Nazarenes, astonished 
at the renown which had come to their fellow-townsman, 
asked, “Is not this the carpenter’s son, and is not his 
mother called Mary?” (Matt. 13:55). 

These facts do not disprove the virgin birth, but they 
do show clearly that that tradition exercised no influence 
over the thought and teaching of the writers of our New 
Testament—outside of the chapters in Matthew and Luke 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 327 


in which the tradition is preserved to us. Consequently 
it cannot be regarded as essential to apostolic thinking. 

The question, “Is the virgin birth essential to Chris- 
tianity?”’ must be answered in the negative also, if in 
this question we mean by Christianity the most exalted 
Christology. This consideration is really a corollary of 
the preceding one, for in Paul and the Johannine writ- 
ings we find as high a doctrine of the person of Christ 
as in later ecclesiastical speculation, even though the 
later speculative formulas are lacking. The pre-existence 
of Christ is clearly taught in Paul and John (I Cor. 8:6; 
Phil. 2:6-10; Col. 1: 15-19; John 1: 1-14), who, as has 
been shown, betray no knowledge of a virgin birth. The 
sinlessness of Christ is also an apostolic doctrine (2 Cor. 
eee Oly 40701, \Olit scr Pet Zoe). butetae 
apostolic writings which most clearly assert the sinless- 
ness betray no knowledge of a virgin birth. Yet pre- 
existence and sinlessness are two attributes which are 
most frequently regarded as rendering essential to Chris- 
tian thinking the doctrine of the virgin birth. The sin- 
lessness of Jesus does not appear less marvelous if He 
had no human father, for human heredity passes as fully 
from the mother as from the father. A virgin birth 
would not, therefore, free Jesus from full and vital con- 
nection with the past of sinful humanity. If His sinless- 
ness signifies that He was thus detached from the com- 
mon inheritance, the detachment involves the supernat- 
ural quite as much if He had no human father, as if He 
were in fact “the carpenter’s son.” 

So also the mystery of the pre-existence is not light- 
ened by the doctrine of the virgin birth. The genesis 
of a human soul is in itself so deep a mystery that specu- 
lation concerning it is baffled in the case of each every- 
day birth among us. Pre-existence for Jesus can be in- 
ferred only from His own self-disclosures in hfe and 
teaching. A virgin birth would not of itself indicate 
such pre-existence, nor would a natural conception make 


328 SELECTED ARTICLES 


such pre-existence less credible—as appears from the fre- 
quency with which the Platonic doctrine of general hu- 
man pre-existence has been advocated. 

The person of Christ is a subject filled with highest 
mystery and holiest significance. For many of us a vir- 
gin birth seems an altogether suitable introduction of 
such a personality into our human fellowship. But, how- 
ever sacred the associations which cling for us to that 
tradition, in simple candor it must be confessed that it 
contains nothing essential to the most exalted Christology. 


TEbe VIRGIN BIRTH. FOS TOR LOCAL Ts 
DUD UG kia 


... No amount of harmonistic ingenuity has ever 
adjusted Matthew’s picture of Bethlehem as the home of 
Jesus’ parents, whither they are prevented from return- 
ing after the flight into Egypt, to Luke’s, where Naza- 
reth is their home, and the census of Quirinius is the 
occasion of their visit to Bethlehem. As regards all the 
details of the narratives, their mutual incompatibilities 
exclude dependence on their details, to say nothing of the 
highly legendary character of the narratives themselves, 
especially Matthew’s, in their individual contents. 

[Footnote] It does not imply a priori rejection of the super- 
natural to class the star which “goes before” the magi and 
“stands over’ the place of the nativity with lights that never 
were on sea or land. The paraphernalia of visions and angels 
in both accounts (Luke 1:26, “the angel Gabriel”) belong to 
the realm of religious fiction, abundantly illustrated in con- 
temporary uncanonical literature, progressively diminishing as 
we approach contemporary records. ... 

... The question to decide is whether historically the 
belated appearance of the idea in Matthew and Luke 
is better accounted for by such gradual infiltration of the 
Pauline idea [that all Christians as the body of Christ 
are, like Isaac, spiritually born] after the fall of Jeru- 


1 By Professor B. W. Bacon, Yale. American Journal of Theology. 
10: 7, g-10. January, 1906. : 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 320 


salem, when even the Palestinian church became Greek- 
speaking and predominantly Pauline in sentiment; or 
whether we are to account for it with Sanday by some 
long-deferred confession of the virgin mother. 

The difficulties which confront the latter explanation 
are certainly the greater, from the historian’s point of 
view. The gospels are explicit in their representation 
that the attitude of Jesus’ mother and brethren was at 
the outset hostile to His work (Mark 3:21, 31), and 
skeptical as to His messianic claims (John 7:5). With- 
out the heavenly message to Mary a supernatural birth 
would be a meaningless prodigy of biology. With it, such 
hostility and skepticism are hard to conceive; and, even 
granting the possibility, what could account for her sup- 
pression of the facts at the period of awakening faith 
in the days when Peter was rallying the disciples with 
the word of resurrection? 

The most unbiased judgment we can give the docu- 
ments is unfavorable to their early origin or credibility. 
Their mutual contradictions and legendary features ex- 
clude the possibility of accuracy in detail; the bare point 
of agreement in respect to the supernatural birth in Beth- 
lehem seems, indeed, to have been “brought forward by 
the conflict with heresy,” but not out of memories of the 
virgin. It is more credibly derived from the Pauline 
doctrine of a spiritual birth of believers as the collective 
Christ, the seed of Abraham, after the manner of Isaac, 
“by a word of promise.” Logically, the idea of the vir- 
gin birth would seem to be a hybrid, if not a monstrosity. 
Historically, it reflects the spirit of the post-apostolic 
age, involving compromise, or amalgamation, between the 
primitive doctrine, of messiahship by descent from 
David, and the Hellenistic, of messiahship by incarnation 
after pre-existence, represented in the Wisdom doctrine 
of Paul and the Logos doctrine of the fourth evangelist. 
The doctrine of the supernatural birth has the merits of 
neither, because it seeks to combine the claims of both. 


330 SELECTED CARTICLES 


THE VIRGIN BIRTH AS A SLUR ON HUMAN 
NATURE AND HUMAN LOVE? 


Supported by Scripture in so slight a way as this tra- 
dition is, one must look elsewhere for explanation of its 
hold upon Christian feeling. A theory of human nature 
lies back of it. This theory is that human nature is de- 
praved, and that its natural issue is necessarily depraved. 
In men and women there is nothing good. When they 
become husband and wife, father and mother, that which 
is born of them partakes of their depravity. From hu- 
man parents there cannot come by ordinary generation 
a perfect child. Jesus was a perfect child; therefore, 
He could not have come into the world by ordinary 
generation. 

This argument has been strengthened through many 
generations of Christian history by ascetic feeling. Men 
and women have been ashamed of their humanity, they 
have looked upon their natural impulses as a humilia- 
tion, they have regarded family life as a concession to 
the animal in their natures; they have considered the 
unmarried state as higher than the married, as indeed 
the only condition compatible with moral purity. A celi- 
bate priesthood has set the example to this way of think- 
ing. An inveterate prejudice has thus arisen against the 
honor of wedded love and natural human parenthood. 

Against both these positions it is impossible too 
strongly to protest. Human nature is not a depraved 
thing; it has been outraged; it is outraged; but in spite 
of outrage it remains higher than all else that we know 
except its own ideals. It is our witness for God, our 
chief witness, and the less we see of its inherent honor, 
the less we see of Him. Human beings are capable of 
love, and wherever love exists, character is cleansed and 
elevated. The love of a man for a woman and the love 


* By George A. Gordon. Religion and Miracle. p. 98-105. Reprinted by 
permission of the author and holder of the copyright. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 331 


of a woman for a man, under the sanction of law, and 
in the form of marriage, is the heart of all that is best 
in the life of the race. . . . Love lives in natural im- 
pulses and processes, and changes their character. Thus 
it is that children in worthy human homes are born of 
the Spirit. By the strength of the Holy Ghost they be- 
gan to be; by His strength they were brought into the 
world. In this sense it is forever true that Jesus was 
conceived of the Holy Ghost while born of His mother 
and her honorable husband. 

The miracle at the beginning of the life of Jesus does 
not, therefore, fall in with the thoughts and experiences 
‘of reasonable Christians today. The nearer to Christ 
that men and women in their homes come, the less ac- 
ceptable becomes that miracle, the less compatible with 
their own life and hope. Besides, it strikes them as an 
awkward miracle. The influence of the father upon the 
child is slight compared with the influence of the mother. 
The child is literally bone of her bone, and flesh of her 
flesh; indeed, all the world acknowledges the predom- 
inance, the sovereignty of the mother. If, therefore, the 
Creative Spirit is unable to neutralize the influence of 
the father in so far as it is malign, how can He over- 
come the infinitely greater influence of the mother in so 
far as it is unfortunate? It is this view of the subject 
that gives to the miracle in question the appearance of 
awkwardness and futility. 

For myself, as I stand among the wise men by the 
manger in Bethlehem, I forget to raise the question even 
in thought, how this child came to be; with the wise men, 
I can only open my heart in homage and gifts. If at any 
less inspired time and place I pass in thought this scene 
of tender and transcendent loveliness back into its utmost 
beginnings, I am sure that I behold nothing but all-hal- 
lowing, all-transforming love, and in the presence of a 
mystery too full of God for mortal vision to pierce, I 
desire, like the prophet of old, to wrap my mantle about 
my face, and answer the eternal honor that lives here, 


332 SELECTED ARTICLES 


and that lives in the process of natural parenthood in all 


worthy men and women, in silent awe and thankful 
trust. 


C. THE BODILY RESURRECTION' 


THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS” 


The following are the facts as Christians believe: (1) 
Jesus died, not in appearance but in reality. (2) His 
body was buried in a tomb as other corpses are buried. 
(3) On the morning of the third day He arose from the 
dead. (4) He appeared repeatedly during forty days 
to the apostles and other witnesses. (5) Afterward He 
ascended to the right hand of the Father. 

The chief point of emphasis here is the resurrection. 
This is the crucial point. What followed is easily con- 
ceded if this be established. By resurrection it is meant 
that the body of Jesus was changed from a dead to a 
living body. It is not necessary to define fully the nature 
of His resurrection body. It was certainly not in all re- 
spects the same as His body prior to the resurrection. 
It may have been in process of glorification during the 
period of appearances to the disciples. It was doubtless 
to become a “spiritual” body, if not already such. It 
was to be adapted to His spirit as its permanent abode. 
But for present purposes this point may be left on one 
side. We insist now chiefly upon this: the grave of 
Jesus was emptied of its contents. It was no “resurrec- 
tion” of His spirit merely, which would have been no 
resurrection at all. What was laid in the grave dead 
came forth therefrom alive. This and nothing less 1s the 
Christian claim. 

This supreme fact it is proposed to establish by testi- 
mony, the witness of competent and credible men. Mean- 


1 See ee “Mr. Bryan on the Five Points.” p. 32-9. 


2By E. Y. Mullins. Why Is Christianity True? American Baptist 
Publishing Society, Philadelphia. Copyright [author]. Reprinted by per- 
mission of the author and the publishers. 


334 SELECTED ARTICLES 


time, however, we may call it a hypothesis. It can be 
established in all the ways insisted upon by science in 
proving hypotheses. It accounts for all the facts. No 
other hypothesis does this. These facts to be accounted 
for are as follows: The accounts of the New Testament 
records, the fact of the moral transformation of the first 
disciples, and the facts of Christian history since their 
day. We are not, of course, dealing with mathematics 
nor with physics. We cannot employ theorems nor apply 
scalpel and miscroscope. The Christian origins belong 
rather to a department of historical science. 

Men, of course, claim and have claimed that no 
amount of evidence can prove a resurrection from the 
dead. What this means is that they decline to believe 
the best evidence when it relates to one class of facts. 
They repudiate evidence valid in all other spheres be- 
cause of its subject matter. Analyze the contents of the 
testimony as to the resurrection of Christ and the denial 
that testimony can prove such a fact becomes absurd. 
It is a testimony to what? To two facts: First, that a 
man was dead; second, that a man was alive. Every 
day in the week the testimony of witnesses establishes 
both facts. Of course, in this case it is not testimony 
that one man was first alive and then dead, nor that one 
man was dead and afterward another man was alive, 
which no one would dispute, but that the same man was 
first dead and then alive. The simplicity of the facts 
of the testimony, merely as facts, however, is as great 
in the last as in the two former cases. 

The following are some of the tests which may be 
applied to the evidence for alleged historical facts. They 
are given more fully in Dr. John Kennedy’s excellent 
treatise, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.” One ele- 
ment of certainty in testimony is that it is from a con- 
temporary who had personal and immediate perception 
of the facts. Another is that the witness loves the truth. 
Sir Cornewall Lewis says: “Historical evidence, like 
judicial evidence, is founded on the evidence of credible 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 335 


witnesses.” He also says the credibility of a witness de- 
pends on the four following conditions: “(1) That the 
fact fell within the reach of his senses. (2) That he 
observed or attended to it. (3) That he possesses a fair 
amount of intelligence and memory. (4) That he is 
free from any sinister or misleading interest; or, if not, 
that he is a person of veracity.” Canon Rawlinson says 
evidence of the second degree of credibility is that ob- 
tained by others directly from eye-witnesses. So also is 
evidence derived from trustworthy contemporary writ- 
ings. The cumulative force of evidence should also be 
recognized. Once more, the validity of evidence in proof 
of facts must not be determined by “the weight of the 
consequences that may happen to depend on them.” 

Consider, first, the evidence of the four Gospels. 
Each of these gives numerous details as to the resurrec- 
tion of Christ. The apparent discrepancies as to certain 
points are a trifle compared with the overwhelming con- 
sensus as to the great fact that Christ rose from the dead. 
The following facts are recorded by all: The death of 
Jesus on the cross; the request of Joseph of Arimathea, 
who obtained the body; that it was placed by Joseph in 
a tomb variously described by the evangelists as “Joseph’s 
own tomb,” a “tomb hewn out of a rock,” etc. Matthew 
and Mark state that a great stone was placed in the door 
of the sepulchre. Matthew and Mark and Luke say that 
women beheld where Jesus was laid. Matthew records 
the sealing of the stone and the placing of a guard by 
chief priests and Pharisees who secured permission from 
Pilate. 

So much for the burial. Then comes the record by 
all that some women went on the third day at daybreak 
and found the grave empty. The stone was rolled away. 
The body was gone. In the various accounts Christ ap- 
pears to Mary Magdalene; to the women; to Peter; to 
two disciples walking to Emmaus; to the apostles except 
Thomas; to the apostles, Thomas being present; to seven 
of the apostles by the Sea of Galilee; to five hundred 


336 SELECTED ARTICLES 


brethren on a mountain in Galilee; to James; to the 
eleven preceding the ascension. Thus Christ appeared, 
in all ten times, after His resurrection, leaving out the 
appearance to Paul. These appearances were under the 
greatest possible variety of circumstances and conditions. 
The first five appearances were on the third day after the 
crucifixion, the day when Christ rose. 

Consider the variety of circumstances under which 
Christ appeared. He sits at table and blesses the bread 
with two disciples; He had already expounded to them 
the Scripture. He tells a doubting disciple to thrust 
his hands into His side to convince himself. He par- 
takes of broiled fish with the disciples by the lakeside. 
An important fact to be noted is the numerous teach- 
ings of Jesus during the resurrection appearances. This 
makes it impossible that disciples could have merely 
imagined they saw Him. He appears to one disciple 
alone, to two, to the women, to the twelve, to seven, to 
five hundred at once. He appears repeatedly in Jeru- 
salem, by the lakeside in Galilee, on the Emmaus walk, 
on the Galilean mountain, and on the Mount of Olives 
before the ascension. 

On all these occasions and in all these ways the wit- 
nesses of the resurrection gained their knowledge. Their 
eyes were witnesses, for they saw His familiar form. 
Their ears were witnesses, for they heard the same lov- 
ing accents of His voice. Their minds were witnesses, 
because He taught them with the same old authority and 
power. Their hearts were witnesses, because again their 
affections were stirred to their depths by His gracious 
dealings with them. This mental and spiritual recogni- 
tion of Christ is of great importance. Dr. Kennedy 
quotes Lord Chief Justice Cockburn in the summing up 
of a celebrated trial as follows: “I now pass from the 
question of identity of person to a question which is of 
quite equal or of greater importance, and that is, how 
far there is not outward identity or resemblance but in- 
ward identity of mind.’ 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 337 


it is clear that none of the disciples expected Christ 
to rise from the dead. The women were anxious as to 
how the stone could be removed from the door of the 
sepulchre that they might enter. John says: “As yet 
they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again 
from the dead” (John xx:9). On the Emmaus jour- 
ney Jesus rebukes the drsciples for being “slow of heart 
to believe” (Luke xxiv: 25). These disciples were sad 
and despondent over the disappointment of all their 
hopes. 

We pass to the testimony of the Apostle Paul. His 
conversion took place when the risen Christ appeared to 
him on the way to Damascus. This is his own account 
of the matter. It is the only possible explanation of 
the career of this man, his sudden complete change in 
character and mission. He is suddenly transformed from 
being a man who is seeking “to suppress the Gospel in 
every creature into a man who seeks to preach the Gos- 
pel to every’ creature 5 The enemy “and™ persectitar 
becomes the champion of the faith. No vestige of evi- 
dence exists in support of any other theory of his con- 
version, such as a gradual change in Paul’s mind due to 
natural causes. 

Paul preached the Gospel of the resurrection through- 
out Asia Minor, in Greece and in Rome. In the fif- 
teenth chapter of [First Corinthians he argues not to 
prove that Christ arose merely, but to show the bearing 
of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body on the 
Christian hope. He sets forth the facts as to Christ: 
“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I re- 
ceived, how that Christ died for our sins according to 
the Scriptures; and that He was buried; and that He 
hath been raised on the third day according to the Scrip- 
tures; and that He appeared to Cephas; then to the 
twelve; then He appeared to above five hundred brethren 
at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but 
some are fallen asleep; then He appeared to James; then 


338 SELECTED, ARTICLES 


to all the apostles; and last of all as unto one born out 
of due time He appeared to me also” (1 Cor. 15: 3-8). 

Let it be borne in mind that this epistle is undis- 
puted. It was written not more than twenty-five years 
after the death of Christ. The appeal is to more than 
two hundred and fifty living witnesses to the resurrec- 
tion of Christ. Consider the folly of such an appeal had 
there been no such witnesses, or had they borne a con- 
trary testimony. The apostle enumerates five appear- 
ances of Christ. Individuals are named from whom he 
had the opportunity to obtain the information. He him- 
self saw the risen Christ, not in a trance or by means of 
a vision, but actually. What he saw made him a wit- 
ness of the resurrection and an apostle just as Peter and 
Paul’ and the others were qualified to be apostles. More- 
over, Paul founds his Gospel on the resurrection. With- 
out it all was vain. The cross which he preached was 
meaningless. 

Here, then, is the chain of proof from the testimony 
of Paul: An eye-witness speaks of what he saw; his 
witness comes through an authentic document from his 
own hand; the testimony relates to an event which oc- 
curred within twenty-five years of the writing of the 
document; the testimony of the writer appeals for cor- 
roboration to two hundred and fifty living witnesses. 
Surely all the tests of credibility may be successfully 
applied to this testimony. Moreover, whatever may be 
true as to date and authorship of the four Gospels we 
have in Paul's four acknowledged epistles ample and 
irrefutable proof of the resurrection of Christ. 

Consider next the manifold way in which the apos- 
tolic witness to the resurrection of Jesus is confirmed. 
It is confirmed in a remarkable manner by the sudden 
and complete moral transformation of those who wit- 
nessed it. We have already noted the case of the apostle 
Paul. So it was with the others. In Jerusalem, in the 
very mouth of the lion, the frightened and fleeing dis- 


1 Sic. The author perhaps means ‘John.’ 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 339 


ciples who had denied their Lord gather again and with 
dauntless courage proclaim this most offensive doctrine, 
and thousands are converted. These men are careless 
now of danger and of death. Most of them yield them- 
selves to stripes, imprisonment, and finally death for the 
truth of their witness. Fraud does not engender such 
moral and physical courage. Delusion does not create 
moral kingdoms of heavenly beauty and power. Psychic 
changes, mere mental impressions, springing up within 
and spending themselves after their kind, do not rear 
new fabrics containing material wholly absent from the 
minds in which they occur. The tree brings forth fruit 
after its kind and no other. Here was fruit which was 
not after the human kind. The resurrection was the 
efficient cause, and it alone was equal to the result. 

The doctrine of the Person of Christ turned upon 
the fact of the resurrection. He was “marked out” to 
be the Son of God with power by the resurrection of the 
dead, was Paul’s way of stating it (Romans 1:4). His 
atoning work had no value without the resurrection. 
‘He was delivered for our offenses and raised again for 
our justification” (Romans 4:25). The hope of Christ’s 
second coming in glory, in the view of New Testament 
Christians, grew out of the resurrection and its attendant 
events and teachings. Moreover, the resurrection of our 
own bodies is expected as a result of that of Christ, who 
was the “first fruits of them that slept.” 

It is to be noted also that only a physical resurrection 
can answer to the total New Testament account of what 
occurred in Joseph's tomb. A mere survival of the spirit 
of Christ is foreign to and inconsistent with every item 
in the record. Exegesis and literary criticism stultify 
themselves by so violent a construction of the resurrec- 
tion stories. 

There were disputes and controversies among the 
Christians of apostolic times, but no difference of opinion 
existed on this point. The Judaizers troubled Paul, but 


340 SELECTED ARTICLES 


they did not question the fact of Christ’s resurrection. 
“Even the heretics who said there was no resurrection of 
the dead (1.e., Christians) could be argued with on the 
ground of their belief in Christ’s resurrection.” 

The first day of the week took the place of the Jewish 
Sabbath as the day of rest and worship as a result of the 
resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the week. Every 
week, then, through the Christian era the memorial day 
has borne witness to Christ’s resurrection. The Chris- 
tian church also is an institution which rests upon the 
resurrection as its foundation. These two witnesses bear 
their testimony today and cannot be explained away. 

It remains to consider briefly the attempts to account 
for the New Testament records of the resurrection of 
Jesus without belief in the fact of the resurrection. 
Formerly the resurrection stories were ascribed to fraud. 
The disciples stole the body away and asserted that He 
rose, or other form of fraud was practiced. This theory 
is abandoned today. Its absurdity was enough to con- 
demn it at the outset. What possible interest could men 
have had in preaching and dying for a mere dead and 
impotent Christ? The theory of fraud recoiled upon 
its advocates. Christianity as a moral phenomenon could 
not, as Dr. Robertson Nicoll says, be “built on rotten- 
ness.” Men felt this. Even unbelievers could not but 
admit it. 

The alleged resurrection, others assert, was due to a 
swoon. Jesus did not die. He was reanimated, after 
lying in the grave for three days, from only an apparent 
death. Even Professor Huxley among moderns has 
hinted at this as a possible explanation. This theory, 
of course, denies that even the spear-thrust of the Ro- 
man soldier ended the life of Jesus, and assumes that 
the enfeebled body of the resuscitated Christ was equal 
to rolling away the stone which was a protection from 
men without, and that somehow Jesus eluded the Roman 
guards who were placed to watch the tomb. Strauss, 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 341 


who rejected the resurrection of Christ, gives the con- 
clusive answer to the swoon theory: “It is impossible 
that a being who had stolen half dead out of the sepul- 
chre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical 
treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and 
indulgence, and who still at last yielded to His suffer- 
ings, could have given to His disciples the impression 
that He was a conqueror over death and the grave, the 
Prince of Life—an impression which lay at the bottom 
of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could 
only have weakened the impression which He had made 
upon them in life and in death; at most could only have 
given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have 
changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their 
reverence into worship.” 

Another theory, advocated by Keim, denies that 
Christ’s body was raised, but holds that in some way the 
living spiritual Jesus did communicate with the disciples 
after His death. This recognizes the miraculous, but satis- 
fies neither naturalist nor supernaturalist. It is utterly 
inconsistent with many passages, such as “Handle Me 
and see,’ etc. If Jesus’ body lay in the grave, then He 
was subject to sin and death as other men. The theory 
empties the doctrinal teaching, based on the resurrection, 
by early disciples, of all meaning. The theory also fails 
utterly to account for the empty grave of Jesus. 

But we pass to consider the most generally accepted 
modern theory advocated by unbelievers. It is known 
as the hallucination or vision theory. Strauss, Renan 
and others have held it in one form or another. Jesus 
died, it says, but did not rise. His body remained in 
the grave. Nor did He communicate with the disciples. 
They were in a highly excited and excitable nervous 
state. Mary Magdalene, at the tomb, much overwrought, 
imagined she saw Jesus, and told her story to other over- 
wrought disciples. They heard a window rattle or the 
wind whistle and imagined Christ spoke to them. Others 


342 SELECTED ARTICLES 


heard and believed likewise. Renan thinks that Peter 
dreamed the scene at the lakeside and the interview with 
the risen Jesus. Thus arose the conviction of the resur- 
rection. Thus the foundation of Christianity was laid. 
For all candid and discriminating critics admit that the 
conviction of the resurrection was the heart of the early 
preaching. 

The replies to this theory are manifold and con- 
clusive. The mental state of the disciples precluded 
hallucination. Men who see ghosts are usually looking 
for them. A state of expectancy precedes the vision. 
But the disciples were in despair. Every hope was 
blasted by the death of Jesus, as the two on the way to 
Emmaus alleged. Besides no past experience prepared 
for this hallucination. Physiological psychology insists 
that every hallucination is the product of previous brain- 
states due to abnormal stimulus from within or without. 
But there were no brain-states produced by previous ex- 
perience to furnish the contents of this extraordinary 
hallucination. Resurrection appearances were not a 
staple of Jewish history. The brain-states which were 
freshest with these men were the result of fear of Jewish 
and Roman rulers, coupled with loss of hope concerning 
Jesus. Jerusalem was the last place in which the mor- 
bid imagination of a woman could convert a large group 
of cowardly men into moral heroes. Jerusalem just then 
was not a good vision climate. 

Moreover, there were five hundred others who came 
under the power of this hallucination, scattered abroad 
even in far Galilee. None doubts. All succumb and go 
forth and turn the world upside down. Men who were 
mockers and doubters at first, afterward yield to the 
hallucination. There were surely no overwrought nerves 
or previous brain-states with these to induce them to give 
credence to so remarkable a tale. Moreover, the effects 
of this hallucination, its power to transform men, sur- 
vive. The test of time has but strengthened its hold on 
men. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 343 


Then, too, these victims of hallucination, these men of 
overwrought nerves, were under a strange restraint. Ten 
times the vision comes, then suddenly it ceases. Why? 
Hallucinations should have become chronic after five 
hundred had been brought under their sway. But now 
hallucination gives place to a definite and conquering 
program of evangelization. Not vision now, not dreams 
now, but witnessing and work. Truly these were mar- 
velous fanatics! 

But whence the teachings of the risen Christ? Hal- 
lucination is usually wanting in this element. Here were 
words, thoughts, commands, which these evangelists 
adopt and upon them base all their future action. And 
what of the dead body of Jesus all this time? It was 
the interest of friend and foe alike to produce it. Dis- 
ciples would wish to do so to verify or disprove their hal- 
lucination. Enemies would surely have done so for 
obvious reasons. The empty grave of Jesus baffles every 
theory of resurrection save the true one. Strauss re- 
constructs the story and allows time for the growth and 
theory of the visions. But it is clear from the account 
that four or five of the appearances of the risen Christ 
occurred on the day of the resurrection, the third day 
after the burial. 

The law of cause and effect is violated also by the 
vision theory. It furnishes no explanation of Christian- 
ity. Spiritualism with its visions produces no such moral 
fruits. Men who write histories of Christianity often 
evade the problem of the cause at this point. Strauss 
and Harnack both recognize that the doctrine of the 
resurrection is the vital breath of early preaching and 
the cause of Christianity, but, as historians, waive the 
question of fact. Well they may if denial is proposed. 
It is only as philosophers that they deny or leave doubt- 
ful the fact. 

In the realm of testimony, then, by all scientific 
methods of dealing with questions of history, the resur- 
rection of Christ stands. Regarding the assertion that 


344 SELECTED ARTICLES 


miracle is impossible Dr. Alexander Maclaren well says: 
“One would like to know how it comes that our modern 
men of science, who protest so much against science be- 
ing corrupted by metaphysics, should commit themselves 
to an assertion like that. Surely that is stark, staring 
metaphysics. It seems as if they thought that the meta- 
physics which said that there was anything behind the 
physical universe was unscientific; but that the meta- 
physics which said that there was nothing behind physics 
was quite legitimate, and ought to be allowed to pass 
muster. What have the votaries of pure physical science, 
who hold the barren word-contests of theology in such 
contempt to do out-Heroding Herod in that fashion, and 
venturing on metaphysical assertions of such a sort?” 

Christianity stands or falls with the resurrection of 
Jesus. The issue may as well be squarely faced. Other 
miracles of Christ are easy to accept if this one took 
place. Our hope is built on it. “For if He be not risen 
there is no resurrection; and if He be not risen there is 
no forgiveness; and if He be not risen there is no Son 
of God; and the world is desolate, and the heaven is 
empty, and the grave is dark, and sin abides and death 
is eternal. If Christ be dead, then that awful vision is 
true, ‘As I looked up into the immeasurable heavens for 
the divine eye, it froze me with an empty bottomless 
eye-socket.’”’ But “we take up the ancient glad salu- 
tation ‘The Lord is risen,’ and turning from these 
thoughts of disaster and despair that that awful suppo- 
sition drags after it, fall back upon the sober certainty 
and with the apostle break forth in triumph, ‘Now is 
Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits 
of them that slept.’ ” 


PAUL) Vo. THE GOSPELS ON MEE 
RESURRECTION + 


The stories at the end of our Gospels are so late in 
origin, so confused and mutually contradictory, so out 


*By Durant Drake. Problems of Religion. p. 84-5, footnote. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 345 


of line with Paul’s allusions and with all inherent plausi- 
bility, that they must be pretty completely discounted. 
Paul shows no knowledge of an empty tomb; Christ’s 
resurrection, in his thought, is an emergence of his spirit 
“from the region of the dead” (ex vexpav)—a spiritual 
resurrection such as he expected for all the faithful, not 
a reanimation of the body and rising from the grave. 
Indeed, the whole discussion in 1 Cor. 15 is aimed against 
those who understand the resurrection to mean a raising 
of the dead body—the belief, in embryo, which the Gos- 
pel stories represent... . We must be on guard, in read- 
ing the words of Jesus and Paul, against reading back 
into them the later ideas embodied in the Gospel endings. 


THE BODILY RESURRECTION NOT 
ESSENTIAL 


The strength of the entire New Testament is the 
assurance that Jesus is alive. The assurance came to the 
twelve through what they believed to be physical appear- 
ances. The assurance came to Paul through a vision, 
through an experience in his mind and soul. The assur- 
ance is the supreme thing, and concerning this all the 
apostles are at one. The assurance of Paul is mightier 
today because we may gain it for ourselves. We cannot 
see the empty grave, we cannot walk with Jesus from 
Jerusalem to Emmaus; we cannot hear Him speak to 
us from the shore of the sea, calling us to dine. The 
form of assurance peculiar to the original disciples is 
inaccessible to us. If their faith becomes our faith, it 
is through our faith in them. With the form of assur- 
ance for which Paul stands it is different. Huis whole 
new being was the witness of the truth of his faith; he 
had no eye-sight, no outward material evidence; it was 
all a transaction in his intellect and character. When we 
have his experience or something like it, we shall have 
his assurance... . 


1 By George A. Gordon. Religion and Miracle. p. 128-9. Reprinted by 
permission of the author and holder of the copyright. 


346 SELECTED ARTICLES 


BODILY RESURRECTION OUT OF THE QUES- 
TION, BUT SPIRITUAL APPEARANCES 
PUSSIB EE > 


The disappearance or absolute annihilation, the re- 
animation, or the sudden transformation into something 
not quite material and yet not quite spiritual, of a really 
dead body, would involve the violation of the best ascer- 
tained laws of physics, chemistry, and physiology. Were 
the testimony fifty times stronger than it is, any hypothe- 
sis would be more passible than that. But in the present 
state of our knowledge of the kind of causality which is 
discovered in the relation between mind and mind, or 
between mind and body, there is nothing to be said 
against the possibility of an appearance of Christ to His 
disciples, which was a real though supernormal psycho- 
logical event, but which involved nothing which can 
properly be spoken of as a suspension of natural law. 


WERE THE WOMEN AT THE RIGHT TOMB?* 


If it be granted that the exact words* of the young 
man [at the tomb] in the Marcan narrative are merely 
an inference from the experience of the women, inter- 
preted in the light of further knowledge and of doctrinal 
presupposition, it becomes a matter of importance to 
ask whether this inference was justifiable, or, in other 
words, whether the facts might have been otherwise 
interpreted. 

It is desirable to reiterate that the inference was, and 
is, reasonable for those who hold that the resurrection 
of Christians as well as of Christ must imply a resusci- 
tation of the flesh and blood laid in the tomb. On this 


1 Dean Rashdall, quoted in Lake, Historical Evidence for the Resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ. p. 269. 

2 By Professor Kirsopp Lake. The Historical Evidence for the Resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ. p. 249-53. 

3“Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been cruci- 
fied: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where thy laid him!” 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 347 


theory the tomb of Christ, if He rose, was certainly 
empty, and the inference of the women was perfectly 
natural. This view was all but universal in the early 
church, and has, of course, still many adherents; but it 
cannot be said to be undisputed, and the question is, 
whether the experience of the women can be given any 
interpretation other than their own. There is little to 
gain by multiplying imaginary reconstructions which can- 
not be proved, but merely as an indication that the in- 
terpretation of the women is not the only one possible, 
the following suggestions may be offered. 

It is seriously a matter for doubt whether the women 
were really in a position to be quite certain that the 
tomb which they visited was that in which they had seen 
Joseph of Arimathaea bury the Lord’s body. ... They 
had spent the day in watching the dying agony of their 
Master, and it is not in human nature at such a time 
calmly to consider a question of locality. Moreover, it 
is very doubtful if they were close to the tomb at the 
moment of burial. ... The possibility, therefore, that 
they came to the wrong tomb is to be reckoned with, 
and it is important because it supplies the natural ex- 
planation of the fact that whereas they had seen the 
tomb closed, they found it open... 

If it were not the same [tomb], the circumstances all 
seem to fall into line. The women came in the early 
morning to a tomb which they thought was the one in 
which they had seen the Lord buried. They expected to 
find a closed tomb, but they found an open one; and a 
young man, who was in the entrance, guessing their er- 
rand, tried to tell them-that they had made a mistake in 
the place. “He is not here,” said he; “see the place where 
they laid Him,” and probably pointed to the next tomb. 
But the women were frightened at the detection of their 
errand and fled, only imperfectly or not at all understand- 
ing what they had heard. It was only later on, when they 
knew that the Lord was risen, and—on their view—that 
His tomb must be empty, that they came to believe that 


348 SELECTED ARTICLES 


the young man was something more than they had seen; 
that he was not telling them of their mistake, but an- 
nouncing the resurrection, and that his intention was 
to give a message for the disciples. 

These remarks are not to be taken as anything more 
than a suggestion of what might possibly have happened. 
All that is said is that if the facts had been of this kind, 
persons who had the opinions and the experience of the 
women and of the evangelists would have produced such 
a narrative as we possess, and would naturally and in- 
evitably have connected the experience of the women, 
the open tomb, and the resurrection in the manner which 
we find in Mark, because they believed that the resur- 
rection must imply an empty tomb. Those who still be- 
lieve in this necessity are justified in making the same in- 
ference, but those of us who believe that the resurrec- 
tion need not imply an empty tomb are justified in saying 
that the narrative might have been produced by causes 
in accordance with our belief, and that the inference of 
the women is one which is not binding on us. The empty 
tomb is for us doctrinally indefensible and is historically 
insufficiently accredited. 

... 1 would reiterate that the crucial point is the 
definition which we give to the resurrection. If we hope 
for this in our case in such a way as to resuscitate the 
human flesh which will be laid in the ground, we must 
postulate the same for the “first-born from the dead.” 
If we do not believe, and would not desire this for our- 
selves, it is illogical that we should believe that it was so 
for Him. 


D. SUPPLEMENTARY EXTRACT 


DR POSDICISS VIEW OF TIE DEITY OF 
GHRIST= 


Why is the New Testament so full of hope about re- 
deemed humanity? Not alone because Jesus was human, 
but because Jesus was divine, the revelation of the living 
God who seeks to be incarnate in every one of us. If 
one says that we cannot hope to be fully equal to Him 
here, surely that is painfully obvious. As Emerson says, 
“A drop of water has the properties of the sea, but cannot 
exhibit a storm.” So we reveal God without the deeps 
and tides and currents which Jesus knew, without the re- 
lationships with the world’s life which His influence has 
sustained. Yet the God Who was in Jesus is the same 
God Who is in us. You cannot have one God and two 
kinds of divinity; and while like drops of water we are 
very small beside His sea, yet it was one of the supreme 
days in man’s spiritual history when the New Testament 
started men singing that they were “children of God: 
and if children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint-heirs 
with Ghrist.... 

A French painter once came down from the provinces 
where all his life he had daubed along at his painting ac- 
cording to his ability, and in Florence saw for the first 
time a magnificent painting by Titian. He never had 
supposed that there was anything like that in all the 
world. After looking at it for a long time he was heard 
to say with mingled humility and pride, “I, too, am a 
painter.” So Christians stand before the Master. O 


1Sermon on The Divinity of Jesus. Christian Work. 114: 426-30. 
April 7, 1923. Since Dr. Fosdick insists that he believes in the deity 
of Christ, it seems only fair to quote from this sermon in order to make 
clear what he means by the phrase. 


350 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Christ, Thou art the Lord of glory! Yet, Son of God 
supreme, Thou hast this effect upon Thy followers, that 


with mingled humility and pride we say, “I, too am a 
son of God.” 


Part V 


THE POSITION OF MODERNISTS IN 
ORTHODOX CHURCHES 






| Seg vice teste? eed an in S08. we, oh 7m 


List aah: wate 5 eek ane 
rlityt wep why Ae A wes ee ian AAG Sipe Sues | 





> 


ae : ; ‘ 3 
a’ faye : " log ? —o- Fi 
“7 
# 
: ave 
+ ¢ 
1 i i rt 
“ ‘ ~ <s ‘ ty 
ov) , : 
ft i | 
‘ ‘ : 
4 rar 
’ é : 
ba 7 
" 
; i 
i te = Aid 
‘ i 4 y 
: ‘ 
: ' 
=.= - ‘ ae 
~ ? -* 
z AO 
é q » 
» * ‘ 
1 
¢ / fy 
/ , iP 
¢ ’ ‘ 
“1 " 
4 : ; 
x '*s 
Sb 


ats hed. 4 
(Al QT ARRON AQ AOTC 
Baht aD KOGQH THOS * 


“4 


rr" 
y) 
\ 
r) N 
“) ay ia 


THE PARSONS’ BATTLE! 


Deep contention is again troubling the waters of Prot- 
estant Christianity in America, and notoriously the storm > 
engages the vivid interest of all kinds of people in all 
parts of the country. The newspapers are supplying the 
contending churchmen with a whole land for an arena and 
with a whole people for an audience. What is the con- 
troversy about? Is it as unseemly and un-Christian as 
Bishop Manning implied when he asked for a Christmas 
truce? Should lay Christians with the interests of organ- 
ized Christianity at heart do their best to hush it up? Or 
should they appraise it, not as an indication of the deca- 
dence and probable disintegration of Protestant Chris- 
tianity in America, but of its increasing vitality? 

There are many possible avenues to the center of 
this controversy, but the avenue to which the foregoing 
questions point looks to us most promising. We have 
not asked, be it observed, whether or not the Modernists 
are justified in seeking to exclude from the creeds af- 
firmations of doubtful scientific authenticity. That ques- 
tion is already answered. It is just as absurd for the 
Fundamentalists to reject the evolutionary hypothesis on 
the grounds which they do as it was for the Catholic 
prelates to insist that the earth was flat. In that respect 
the Modernists are wholly right and their opponents 
wholly wrong. But the controversy between them in- 
vites other and more doubtful questions. If the Modern- 
ists are right and the creeds need to be revised and rein- 
terpreted in the light of modern science, what effect will 
the revision have upon the cohesion and the future of the 
Protestant denominations? These creeds have in the 


1From New Republic. 37: 161-2. January 971 1924. 


354 SELECTED ARTICLES 


past supplied the keystones for the arches which carried 
the superstructure of denominational Christianity. What 
will happen to the Protestant churches if common con- 
viction becomes so unimportant that their members may 
or may not believe in the virgin birth or the verbal in- 
spiration of the Scriptures, or the divinity of Christ? In 
short, what are the binding motives of the members of 
a Protestant Christian church? What is the proper test 
of their fidelity? Under what provocation should they 
secede or insist on the secession of others? What part 
should joint conviction. play in the spiritual fellowship of 
a Protestant denomination? 

During the centuries when all Christians were sup- 
posed to belong to one supreme and indivisible church, 
joint conviction constituted the chief binder of or- 
ganized Christianity. The doubter of any article of the 
creed and its authorized ecclesiastical interpretation was 
ipso facto beyond the pale. He was the most dangerous 
enemy of the Christian community, and the church pun- 
ished him not merely by imprisonment and death in this 
world but by the denial of salvation in the next. After 
the Reformation Protestants continued for several cen- 
turies to attach enormous importance to community of 
conviction. They gradually abandoned the attempt to 
reach common convictions by the exercise of compulsion, 
but the unity of belief within the churches which they 
could not obtain by compulsion, they obtained by pre- 
cisely the opposite course—viz., complete and in practice 
irresponsible freedom in forming new Christian com- 
munions. The multiplication of dissenting sects during 
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries became by a 
significant paradox both the weakness and the strength 
of Protestantism. In forming new dissenting groups, 
Protestants demonstrated the vitality of their religious 
convictions, but at the same time they condemned this 
conscious ingredient in their faith to an essentially trivial 
and controversial expression. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 355 


Recently the Protestant leaders have naturally sought 
to check and even to reverse this tendency in Protestant 
Christian behavior; and they have on the whole suc- 
ceeded. Of course new and formidable sects like the 
Christian Scientists have been born and flourished, but 
Christian Science was a special case and was created by 
a special need which the leaders of the evangelical sects 
have never sufficiently understood. Generally speaking 
Protestantism had consciously labored to avoid further 
secessions. Occasions for dissent still existed in abun- 
dance, but the possible dissenters were chiefly clergymen 
whose historical and biological knowledge had compelied 
them to question the literal truth of certain articles in 
the creed, and these scholars were too sophisticated to 
repeat the barren procedure whereby former Protestants 
had demonstrated the sincerity of their convictions. 
They are reformers but they are not schismatics. They 
propose to take their church with them and are, con- 
sequently, most reluctant to part company with it. While 
ultimately they expect and hope to alter the wording of 
the Episcopal or Presbyterian creed, they are for the 
present only trying to secure the freedom to doubt and 
discuss its affirmations and, if necessary, to take refuge 
in symbolic or broad interpretations. But during the 
period of agitation, when they are educating the members 
of the churches to accept revision, they wish to avoid 
any question as to their title to be called Presbyterians 
or Episcopalians. They are boring from within. 

Their desire to avoid futile secession is understand- 
able and intelligent, but in acting upon it they incur a 
penalty the importance of which liberal Protestants do 
not sufficiently admit. The conscious avoidance of seces- 
sion as the expression of dissenting beliefs implicitly re- 
pudiates the traditional basis of denominational Chris- 
tianity. The Protestant sects have combined a belief in 
creeds as the test of ecclesiastical fellowship with the 
abandonment of compulsion as a means of keeping their 


350 SELECTED "ARTICLES 


members loyal to the communion. But they have until 
recently kept creeds alive and near to the hearts of be- 
lievers by permitting and even encouraging dissent and 
secession. What in the light of this historical fact are 
the implications and what are likely to be the conse- 
quences of the proposed checking of the practice by the 
Modernists? Are the Protestant denominations cap- 
able of becoming coalitions rather than communities of 
believers? Is it a movement away from Protestantism 
and toward a revived Catholicism? If so, what will be - 
the bond of union in the hypothetically universal church 
and how may it come to prevail? If not, what will hap- 
pen to the Protestant denominations, deprived as they 
will be of the common understanding, the affirmation of 
which has constituted hitherto their chief reason for 
existence? 

It is questions of this kind combined with the attempt 
of the Modernists to bore from within which explain the 
fierceness of the controversy and the zeal and the “in- 
tolerance” of the Fundamentalists. They are afraid 
that, if they do not assume the offensive and drive the 
skeptics and latitudinarians out of their particular church, 
they will allow fundamentalism to fall by default. The 
modernist alteration of the creeds would attach meanings 
to Presbyterianism and Anglicanism which are repug- 
nant to them. If new interpretations or phrasings should 
prevail, they would consider it necessary themselves to 
secede. But why should they withdraw from a church 
whose creed, as it now reads and as it has generally been 
interpreted in the past, is satisfactory to them? Why 
not force the innovators out and keep their church for 
true believers like themselves? They would not in that 
case be denying the right of the Modernist to think any- 
thing he pleases. They would merely insist that, unless 
he accepted certain assertions about the meaning of their 
faith which the brethren consider fundamental, he should 
withdraw from a fellowship whose common assumptions 
he no longer accepts, 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 357 


This claim of the Fundamentalists is entitled to a 
respectful hearing. The really important bone of con- 
tention between them and the Modernists concerns the 
necessity and function of community of conviction in 
the fellowship of a Protestant denomination. The Mod- 
ernists evade a sharp statement of the issue by accusing 
their opponents of intolerance, and intolerant the conser- 
vatives undoubtedly are, but they are intolerant in the 
hope of preserving the traditional bond of union in de- 
nominational Christianity—that of common understand- 
ing. The same bond of union may be unnecessary in 
the future, but if it is discarded its rejection will assur- 
edly alter profoundly the psychology of Protestant Chris- 
tianity. For this reason the Modernists can hardly jus- 
tify their novel combination of radicalism of belief with 
conformity in action without undertaking a task which 
they have hitherto disregarded. They should meet fun- 
damentalism on its chosen ground and explain the kind 
of common understanding which the churches may sub- 
stitute for allegiance to authoritatively interpreted dogma 
as the chief source of cohesion in a Christian community. 
They have never satisfied the perfectly fair demand of 
the conservatives for some indication of what modern- 
ism means in addition to unhampered discussion and the 
spirit of free inquiry. If it does mean common under- 
standing is that understanding restricted to common 
standards of Christian ethics or does it include a com- 
mon vision of Christian truth in its relation to the uni- 
verse and human life? 

The scope of the influence which modernism exerts 
on Protestant Christianity will depend upon its answer 
to the last question. Modernism must seek, if it is cap- 
able of rising to its opportunity, the gradual destruction 
of the forbidding barriers which have divided for so 
long the naturalistic explanation of the world from the 
Christian faith. For the moment the Modernists limit 
themselves to questioning certain affirmations of the 
creeds which the advance of historical and biological 


358 SELECTED ARTICLES 


knowledge has rendered obsolete, but in divorcing 
Christianity from these errors they are only driving in 
the outposts of Protestant dogmatic conservatism. Un- 
less they are content like previous Protestants to remain 
mere dissenters, they must supply to Protestant Chris- 
tianity the positive impulse and the increasing under- 
standing which will make for reunion and reconstruction. 
The fundamental trouble with the Protestant denomina- 
tions is that some centuries ago they abandoned the 
effective organized moral leadership of the Christian 
peoples to the state. It is the business of the Modern- 
ists to equip and educate the Christian church to resume 
leadership, and this they cannot do unless they place 
religious faith behind the attempt to employ science in 
behalf of the fulfilment of man’s whole life as industry 
and the state have used it for the satisfaction of partial 
and special human desires. 

We would like to see the Modernists become Funda- 
mentalists in the interest of a Christian revival. The 
world of today is bound to drift away from a religion 
whose professors either reject or at best merely tolerate 
the contemporary science, which is no less divided from 
the plastic artist than it is from the scientist and which 
cannot either reach a common understanding of what 
fundamentally Christianity means nor pull together with- 
out such an understanding. A regenerate Christianity 
can only spring from an alliance between naturalism, 
and aesthetic imagination and the Christian faith. We 
welcome the apparent decision of the Fundamentalists 
to precipitate the issue between themselves and the re- 
formers in the hope that the challenge may stimulate the 
Modernists to move toward their only adequate ultimate 
objective. Modernism is latently far more radical than 
the Modernists. If the latter are forced to find a sub- 
stitute for their allegiance to Presbyterianism and Epis- 
copalianism, they may be roused to build a new founda- 
tion in common understanding for an essentially non- 
denominational Christian community. They may give 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 359 


form to the synthesis between science, art and religion, 
between research, imagination and faith which the mod- 
ern world of today so grievously needs. 






nee 
Brie ey “ ie 


Uae ts 













ee 





















it Rares wu eee 
BE Shr ua Felete TAT Siew “petite Git 
vay Saeki aot os Ot ah Pe aay” 


7 7 ate. : = .% 
ea, : , A pity rt er i \ dl a ae ‘had 


« 


Ree 


: 7 5 -_. = “ 
ent ee ine: ate ‘ough | my ‘ Mr ¢. <i -4t pyr) (tae ety 


“ ’ 
: , f V4 
| 
A ev . 
ja im ea 
‘ See eS MGR te 
>, 
' vi 
iy ee ar] i ' 
i ys i 4 1 au ) 


*y 
% 


ig? A % j 47 a " 
% ‘ pr ERs at. : 
ae : 5 i 
- * id 
° * ti? 
] . . 8 
J Md 8 
; 
i+ n 
‘ " 
mm y Wie 5 ee 
1" 5 
4 + 
‘ va res 
ere conics Many 
I 4 ea, 
rt a ie} 
re 4 hy 
i be Ma tN r et. 
5 a ae I inf ‘a + 
¥ 3 < ~*~ . ; i 
E, wee OS oi » 
. 1 
ba 7) ah ak fet i 
+! : *. ; yrs 
28 ‘ } say Ve 1(4 
: , \ 
: a} J = 7 
4 i - P 7 oe, tees s 
; Mu m Par oA = MS Wine hed ae wv .. ae as 
" . eK oh a 7 ii al 
3 a ics i. @ = - 
‘ ' { oa ¥ “ey “DN ley a2 - 
wt, 5 | : 


a - G8 te PL pica ste ele Nagi oe 7a 3 ne 7 cae 


ri, 4 i* » ve a 
A 7 ay 
_ : La « A wl A 

' ats 4: <n af ce a ". 7 eye Ca 4 ni pan ie LOS tS 


(Sie A io Meee Me AT MR en ae che Set ey Ha nee 
Ve AavAe clea. PR ihe hie Aa per eto F hee py » ae 
ahaa Rome Yaitaie stein DA Ne Jae ee 
5 eal sata i iat Sea bier nese Pie 
er Pe ee sei eey chs bs fof as bs Eo ie sane. 5, ae Lae 
pits ah Aire wetitle: . Sp ARpese ‘Hg kayd 
lag aL, ita Syed at fe ba rete is ihetmudant tie iG 


Vr Ae fi al LP > ae Pye ‘ va as Ms Ae; a 
‘ Asad We oN a ie ¢ ene 





A. AGAINST THE RIGHT OF THE 
MODERNISTS TO REMAIN 


BRIEF STATEMENTS +? 


R. A. Torrey, DEAN oF THE BIBLE INSTITUTE oF Los 
ANGELES: 


Personally, I think it would be desirable, if possible, 
that there should be a new alignment of Christians. The 
old denominational differences have lost their significance. 
The alignment should be along the line of whether peo- 
ple accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God or not. 
Those that do not should get together, irrespective of 
present denominational connections, and form a new de- 
nomination, and those who do should get together and 
form a new denomination. 


PROFESSOR JOHN GRESHAM MACHEN, OF PRINCETON 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY : 


Two mutually exclusive religions are being propa- 
gated within the Presbyterian church, as within other 
“evangelical” churches. One is the great redemptive 
religion known as Christianity; the other is the natural- 
istic or agnostic modernism represented by Dr. Fosdick 
and by many Presbyterian ministers. If one of these is 
true the other is false. It is, therefore, quite intolerable 
that both of them should be propagated by the same 
funds and with the endorsement of the same organiza- 
tion... . It is high time that all mental reservations, all 
“interpretations” which really are thoroughgoing con- 
tradictions of perfectly plain documents, should be aban- 
doned and that there should be a return to common sense 
and common honesty. 


1 Homiletic Review. 86: 186-90. September, 1923. The Battle Within 
the Churches. 


362 SELECTED. TARTICLES 


MODERNISTS HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE IN 
ORTHODOX CHURCHES = 


... An evangelical church is composed of a number 
of persons who have come to agreement in a certain 
message about Christ and who desire to unite in the 
propagation of that message, as it is set forth in their 
creed on the basis of the Bible. No one is forced to 
unite himself with the body thus formed... . If other 
persons desire to form_a religious association with some 
purpose other than the propagation of a message—for 
example, the purpose of promoting in the world, simply 
by exhortation and by the inspiration of the example of 
Jesus, a certain type of life—they are at perfect liberty 
to do so. But for an organization which is founded with 
the fundamental purpose of propagating a message to 
commit its resources and its name to those who are en- 
gaged in combating the message is not tolerance but 
simple dishonesty. Yet it is exactly this course of action 
that is advocated by those who would allow non-doc- 
trinal religion to be taught in the name of doctrinal 
churches—churches that are plainly doctrinal both in 
their constitutions and in the declarations which they 
require of every candidate for ordination. 

The matter may be made plain by an illustration from 
secular life. Suppose in a political campaign in America 
there be formed a Democratic club for the purpose of 
furthering the cause of the Democratic party. Suppose 
there are certain other citizens who are opposed to the 
tenets of the Democratic club and in opposition desire 
to support the Republican party. What is the honest 
way for them to accomplish their purpose? Plainly it 
is simply the formation of a Republican club which shall 
carry on a propaganda in favor of Republican principles. 
But suppose, instead of pursuing this simple course of 

1 By J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. p. 168-70. Copy- 


righ (1923), The Macmillan Company. Reprinted by permission of the 
publishers. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 363 


action, the advocates of Republican principles should 
conceive the notion of making a declaration of conform- 
ity to Democratic principles, thus gaining an entrance 
into the Democratic club and finally turning its resources 
into an anti-Democratic propaganda. That plan might 
be ingenious. But would it be honest? Yet it is just 
exactly such a plan which is adopted by advocates of a 
non-doctrinal religion whd by subscription to a creed 
gain an entrance into the teaching ministry of doctrinal 
or evangelical churches. . . . The church may possibly 
be more honest, but certainly it ought not to be less 
honest, than a political club. 


Pe LoL MODERNIS PSaTlON Bis Deg 


Why do the liberals conceal their views and suppress 
discussion? If they believe that their interpretation of 
the Bible is correct, why do they not proclaim it from the 
housetop? Why do they attempt, by the use of epithets, 
to terrorize the masses of the church into accepting with- 
out proof or even discussion the views of those who put 
their own authority above the authority of the Bible? 
Surely we can expect of ministers, even though they 
call themselves liberal, a standard of honor as high as 
that which is required in politics. Candidates for office 
run upon platforms and ask the support only of those 
who entertain similar views; why should not candidates 
for the pulpits be as frank with those who pay their 
salaries? 

I digress for a moment to answer an oft-repeated 
assertion, namely, that the church is suppressing “free- 
dom of thought.” How can a church exist unless it 
stands for something? And who shall determine what 
the church stands for except the church itself? Why 
should anyone desire to preach for a church unless he 
agrees with the church? And why should a church per- 


. By W. J. Bryan. The Fundamentals. Forum. 70: 1665-80. July, 1923. 


304 SELECTED ARTICLES 


mit one to represent it as a preacher who does not be- 
lieve in the things for which it stands? Will any one 
contend that a minister who, after an examination, has 
been given a license to preach, is at liberty to change his 
views, renounce the doctrines of the church and then 
insist upon the right to misrepresent the church? 

As an individual, anyone is free to believe anything 
he likes or to refuse to believe. That is his privilege in 
this country and it is a very important privilege which 
should always be protected. That is the very essence of 
freedom of conscience. But freedom of conscience be- 
longs to individuals only. No man has a right to substi- 
tute his conscience for the conscience of a church or the 
conscience of a congregation. A preacher who conceals 
his views from those who pay his salary, knowing when 
he does so that his salary would terminate if his views 
were known, is obtaining money under false pretense 
and is just as guilty of a crime as the man who is sent 
to the penitentiary for obtaining money on false state- 
ments. A congregation has a right to assume that a 
preacher, if an honest man, would not accept a position 
unless his views were in agreement with the views of 
the church. Some preachers have tried to avoid a state- 
ment of their views by declaring non-essential the doc- 
trines they reject—hence it was necessary for the Gen- 
eral Assembly to assert that these doctrines are essential 
as well as true. If a preacher can, by declaring a doc- 
trine non-essential, justify himself in concealing his views 
on the subject, he can eliminate from the Bible anything 
he pleases, regardless of what the members of his con- 
gregation may regard as essential. The Presbyterian 
General Assembly has nailed these “essential” doctrines 
of the church on the front of the pulpit so that the con- 
gregation can measure the minister by the church’s 
pronouncement. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 365 


SOME DIFFERENCES DO NOT PREVENT 
CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, BUT THIS 
ONE DOES: 


One such difference of opinion, which has been at- 
taining increasing prominence in recent years, concerns 
the order of events in connection with the Lord’s return. 
A large number of Christian people believe that when 
evil has reached its climax in the world, the Lord Jesus 
will return to this earth in bodily presence to bring about 
a reign of righteousness which will last a thousand years, 
and that only after that period the end of the world 
will come. That belief, in the opinion of the present 
writer, is an error, arrived at by a false interpretation 
of the Word of God; we do not think that the prophecies 
of the Bible permit so definite a mapping-out of future 
events. The Lord will come again, and it will be no 
mere “spiritual” coming in the modern sense—so much 
is clear—but that so little will be accomplished by the 
present dispensation of the Holy Spirit and so much will 
be left to be accomplished by the Lord in bodily pres- 
ence—such a view we cannot find to be justified by the 
words of Scripture. What is our attitude, then, with re- 
gard to this debate? Certainly it cannot be an attitude 
of indifference. The recrudescence of “Chiliasm” or 
“premillennialism” in the modern church causes us seri- 
ous concern; it is coupled, we think, with a false method 
of interpreting Scripture which in the long run will be 
productive of harm. Yet how great is our agreement 
with those who hold the premillennial view! They share 
to the full our reverence for the authority of the Bible, 
and differ from us only in the interpretation of the Bible; 
they share our ascription of deity to the Lord Jesus, and 
our supernaturalistic conception both of the entrance of 
Jesus into the world and of the consummation when He 
shall come again. Certainly, then, from our point of 


1 By J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. p. 48-52. Copy- 
right (1923), The Macmillan Company. Reprinted by permission of the 
publishers. 


306 SELECTED SAR TICES 


view, their error, serious though it may be, is not a 
deadly error; and Christian fellowship, with loyalty not 
only to the Bible but to the great creeds of the church, 
can still unite us with them. It is, therefore, highly mis- 
leading when modern liberals represent the present issue 
in the church, both in the mission field and at home, as 
being an issue between premillennialism and the opposite 
view. It is really an issue between Christianity, whether 
premillennial or not, on the one side, and a naturalistic 
negation of all Christianity on the other. 

Another difference of opinion which can subsist in 
the midst of Christian fellowship is the difference of 
opinion about the mode of efficacy of the sacraments... . 

Still another difference of opinion concerns the nature 
and prerogatives of the Christian ministry. . . . Here 
again, the difference is no trifle.... But... it does not 
descend to the very roots. Even to the conscientious 
Anglican himself, though he regards the members of 
other bodies as in schism, Christian fellowship with in- 
dividuals in those other bodies is still possible; and cer- 
tainly those who-reject the Anglican view of the minis- 
try can regard the Anglican church as a genuine and 
very noble member in the body of Christ. 

... We would not indeed obscure the difference which 
divides us from Rome. The gulf is indeed profound. 
But profound as it 1s, it seems almost trifling compared 
to the abyss which stands between us and many minis- 
ters of our own church. The church of Rome may rep- 
resent a perversion of the Christian religion; but natur- 
alistic liberalism is not Christianity at all. 


PASTORAL LETTER, OF ~THE: “TOUS Hommes 
BISHOPS, OF YO (PROP IS 1 Auten 
FRISGOPAL CHURCH 


BRETHREN OF THE CLERGY AND LAITY: 


Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father 
and the Lord Jesus Christ. 


1 Adopted November 14, 1923, at a special meeting of the House at 
Dallas, Texas. From the official copy. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 367 


We are aware of the widespread distress and dis- 
turbance of mind among many earnest church people, 
both clerical and lay, caused by several recent utterances 
concerning the Creeds. Moreover, as the Chief Pastors 
of the Church solemnly pledged to uphold its Faith, we 
have been formally appealed to by eminent laymen for 
advice and guidance with the regard to the questions 
thus raised. , 

We, your Bishops, put forth these words of explana- 
tion and, we trust, of reassurance. 

1. A distinction is to be recognized (as in the Cate- 
chism) between the profession of our belief m, 1.e., of 
entire surrender to, the Triune God, and the declaration 
that we believe certain facts about the operations of the 
Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, our Creator, 
Redeemer and Sanctifier. The former is far more im- 
portant as expressing our relation and attitude towards 
the Personal God. But the affirmation of the facts, de- 
clared by Holy Scripture and part of the belief of the 
Christian Church from the beginning, is of vital impor- 
tance to faith and life. The Christian faith may be dis- 
tinguished from the forms in which it is expressed as 
something deeper and higher, and more personal, but 
not by contradicting the terms in which it has always 
been expressed. 

2. The Creeds give and require no theories or ex- 
planations of the facts which they rehearse. No ex- 
planation is given of the Trinity, how God is at the 
same time absolutely One in His Spiritual Being, and 
yet exists in a three-fold manner; nor concerning the 
Incarnation, of the manner in which the Divine and 
Human natures are linked together in the One Person 
of our Lord Jesus Christ; nor of the nature of the resur- 
rection body, Christ’s or ours. 

3. The shorter Apostles’ Creed is to be interpreted 
in the light of the fuller Nicene Creed. The more elab- 
orate statements of the latter safeguard the sense in 
which the simpler language of the former is to be under- 


368 SELECTED ARTICLES 


stood, for instance with reference to the term, ‘‘The 
Son of God.” 

4. Some test of earnest and sincere purpose of dis- 
cipleship, for belief and for life, is reasonably required 
for admission to the Christian Society. Accordingly 
profession of the Apostles’ Creed, as a summary of 
Christian belief, stands and has stood from early days, 
along with Renunciation of evil and the promise of Obe- 
dience to God’s Commandments, as a condition of Bap- 
tism. 

5. A clergyman, whether Deacon, Priest or Bishop, 
is required as a condition of receiving his ministerial 
commission, to promise conformity to the doctrine, dis- 
cipline and worship of this Church. Among the offences 
for which he is liable to be presented for trial is the 
holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, 
doctrine contrary to that of this church. Individual 
aberrations, in teaching or practice, are regrettable and 
censurable; but they ought not to be taken as supersed- 
ing the deliberate and written standards of the Church. 
It is irreconcilable with the vows voluntarily made at 
ordination for a minister of this Church to deny, or to 
suggest doubt as to the facts and truths declared in the 
Apostles’ Creed. 

6. To deny, or to treat as immaterial, belief in the 
Creed in which at every regular Service of the Church 
both Minister and people profess to believe, is to trifle 
with words and cannot but expose us to the suspicion 
and the danger of dishonesty and unreality. Honesty in 
the use of language—to say what we mean and to mean 
what we say—is not least important with regard to re- 
ligious language (and especially in our approach to Al- 
mighty God), however imperfect to express divine 
realities we may recognize human words to be. To ex- 
plain away the statement, “Conceived by the Holy Ghost 
and born of the Virgin Mary,” as if it referred to a 
birth in the ordinary way, of two human parents, under 
perhaps exceptionally holy conditions, is plainly an abuse 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 369 


of language. An ordinary birth could not have been so 
described, nor can the words of the Creed fairly be so 
understood. 

7. Objections to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, 
or to the bodily Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
are not only contrary to the Christian tradition, but have 
been abundantly dealt with by the best scholarship of 
the day. 

8. It is not the fact of the Virgin Birth that makes 
us believe in our Lord as God; but our belief in Him 
as God makes reasonable and natural our acceptance of 
the fact of the Virgin Birth as declared in the Scrip- 
tures and as confessed in the Creed from the earliest 
times. 

9, The Creed witnesses to the deliberate and de- 
termined purpose of the Church not to explain but to 
proclaim the fact that the Jesus of history is none other 
than God and Saviour, on Whom and on faith in Whom 
depends the whole world’s hope of redemption and 
salvation. 

10. So far from imposing fetters on our thought, 
the Creeds, with their simple statement of great truths 
and facts without elaborate philosophical .disquisitions, 
give us a point of departure for free thought and specu- 
lation on the meaning and consequences of the facts re- 
vealed by God. The Truth is never a barrier to thought. 
In belief, as in life, it is the Truth that makes us free. 


Pit ene Oh PRS BY TRREANS = 


Every candidate for the ministry of the Presbyterian 
Church is required to answer the following question, put 
to him by the Presbytery when he comes up for licensure: 
“Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of 
Faith of this church as containing the system of doctrine 
taught in the Scriptures?” 


1 By Rev. Clarence E. Macartney, Philadelphia. Christian Work. 115: 
87-9. July 21, 1923. 


370 SELECTED’ ARTICLES 


There could be no more solemn obligation than that 
of this vow. If the candidate take it ignorantly, he does 
injury to the church. If he take it dishonestly, he lies 
not only to man but to God. There are two general prin- 
ciples by which men interpret vows and confessions of 
faith. These are, first, the plain historical meaning of 
the words; and second, the intention of the party im- 
posing the oath or requiring the profession. With these 
two principles in mind, let us now see what is meant 
when a man says that he sincerely receives and adopts 
the Confession of Faith. There are three ways in which 
the vow has been interpreted: 

1. That the candidate assents to every proposition 
contained in the Confession of Faith. Very few have 
ever so taken it. I doubt if there is a man in the church 
today who so receives the Confession of Faith. The Con- 
fession deals with a great number of subjects, and some 
of these subjects, while most important, have little or 
nothing to do with the system of doctrine taught in the 
Bible. The framers of the Westminster standards dealt 
not only with the changeless themes of salvation and 
grace, but they touched upon problems which arose out 
of the religious and political conditions of the day. They 
were men who were determined to save England from 
prelacy and popery. It is not strange then that we find 
in the chapter on the church they added to the sufficient 
confession that “There is no other head of the church 
but the Lord Jesus Christ,” the statement that the “Pope 
of Rome is not the head of the church, but is that anti- 
Christ, the man of sin, and son of perdition, that ex- 
alteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that 
is called God.” The papal system undoubtedly has had 
in it much that is anti-Christian, but probably few men 
in the Presbyterian ministry are agreed that the Pope is 
definitely and exclusively the man of sin, the son of per- 
dition, the anti-Christ of the Bible. The fear of prelacy 
and of popery is shown again in the clauses dealing with 
magistrates and civil rulers, which asserted the right of 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 371 


the civil magistrate to use force in the suppression of 
heresies and blasphemies and corruptions in worship. But 
when the Synod of Philadelphia adopted the Confession 
of Faith it put itself on record as not accepting the clause 
on the powers of the magistrate. When the General As- 
sembly was constituted in 1788 this clause of the Confes- 
sion (XXIII, 3) was revised so that, as it now stands, 
the church declares merely that it is the duty of the civil 
authorities to protect all churches in the freedom of their 
worship. 

The chapter on Marriage and Divorce deals with 
questions which are not a part of the system of doctrine 
taught in the Bible. This chapter recognizes wilful de- 
sertion as a ground for divorce and remarriage. But 
there are many ministers in our church who do not agree 
to this; they recognize but one cause for divorce—adul- 
tery. If this chapter were strictly enforced it would 
bar a man from marrying his deceased wife’s sister, for 
the chapter declares that there may be no marriage 
within the degrees of consanguinity and affinity forbid- 
den in the Word, and the 18th chapter of Leviticus is 
referred to as a part of the Word’s teaching on that sub- 
ject. These are instances of how the confession deals 
with subjects which are not vital to the system of doc- 
trine taught in the Bible. The church has never refused 
ordination to a man because he did not believe that the 
Pope is anti-Christ, or that there is but one ground for 
divorce, or that a man may marry his deceased wife’s 
sister, nor has any minister ever been excommunicated 
for holding such views. 

2. That the candidate adopts the Confession of Faith 
as containing the “substance” of doctrine taught in the 
Scriptures. This term “substance of doctrine’ is that 
used by Charles Hodge in his book on “Church Polity,” 
and is perhaps as good a term as can be found to describe 
the latitudinarian interpretation of the Confession of 
Faith so prevalent today and which threatens the very 
existence of the Presbyterian church. Another term em- 


372 SELECTED ARTICLES 


ployed in defending and describing this interpretation of 
the creed is “essential and necessary articles.” This is 
a phrase borrowed from the so-called Adopting Act of 
the Synod of Philadelphia in 1729. In this preliminary 
act the Synod declared that ‘all the ministers of this 
Synod or that shall hereafter be admitted to this Synod, 
shall declare their agreement in and approbation of the 
Confession of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Cate- 
chisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as 
being in all the essential and necessary articles, good 
forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine, 
and do also adopt the said confession and catechisms 
as the confession of our faith.” 

There are those who have maintained that this adopt- 
ing act gives to the candidate for the Presbyterian min- 
istry a very wide liberty in taking the ordination vow. 
But what were those articles which the Synod of Phila- 
delphia considered as non-essential? The discussions of 
the day on which the confession was finally adopted 
show that what troubled the Synod was the clauses about 
the powers of civil magistrates as set forth in chapters 
20 and 23. At the afternoon session the Synod formally 
adopted the Confession of Faith, excepting the articles 
on magistrates. But, with the exception of those articles, 
the Confession of Faith was ratified and adopted. This 
fundamental act has never been abrogated. When the 
present constitution of the church was adopted in 1788 
the Confession of Faith was adopted as a part of that 
constitution, the only changes being the revision of the 
articles dealing with the powers of the civil magistrates 
and synods and councils. 

From the beginning there were some who held that 
the Adopting Act of 1729 gave the candidate the liberty 
of taking the Confession of Faith in so far as he con- 
sidered it to state the “articles essential to Christianity,” 
and rejecting all else. This point of view at once pro- 
duced confusion and controversy, but the Synod has al- 
ways made it clear in its deliverances on the subject that 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 373 


by the adoption of the confession something more was 
meant than a mere subscription to those doctrines which 
the candidate regarded as “essential to Christianity.” The 
Rev. Mr. Harkness was suspended from the ministry for 
doctrinal errors in spite of his plea that the Synod re- 
quired only the adoption of the essential doctrines of 
Christianity. Repeatedly the Synod put itself on record 
as repudiating this lax interpretation of the Confession 
of Faith, declaring that the Synod never intended that 
the confession should be adopted only in those articles 
essential to Christianity. 

But why has the Presbyterian church never consid- 
ered it sufficient that its candidates should say they re- 
ceive the Confession of Faith as containing the “sub- 
stance’ of doctrine taught in the Scriptures, or as con- 
taining the doctrines “essential to Christianity”? What 
more could be desired than the adoption on the part of 
the candidate of “essential” Christianity? The reason 
why the Presbyterian church has never permitted this 
interpretation of the confession is evident when one con- 
siders the great variety of Christian beliefs or lack of 
beliefs, which such an interpretation would sanction. Who 
is to say what is the “substance” of doctrine taught in 
the Scriptures and what the essential doctrines of Chris- 
tianity are? Is this to be left entirely to the man taking 
the vow? Or is the church which imposes the vow to 
have something to say on the subject? In some of the 
presbyteries of the Presbyterian church there is a prac- 
tical recognition of the principle that the candidate alone 
is to be the judge of what is essential, and every year 
the report of the examinations of candidates in these 
presbyteries shows that “essential” doctrines are becom- 
ing fewer and fewer. 

Let us see what this latitudinarian interpretation 
would lead to. Here is a candidate for the ministry who 
believes that the only essential doctrine of Christianity 
is the doctrine of God. This doctrine he finds stated in 
the Confession of Faith. He rejects that part of the 


374 mh BY id b= eS Ba BT 


chapter which speaks of God the Trinity, but accepts the 
rest. All the great doctrines about sin and grace and re- 
demption through Christ this man rejects. But since the 
Confession of Faith does contain a statement about God, 
and since he regards that doctrine of God as the only 
essential doctrine, therefore he can sincerely say that 
he receives the Confession of Faith as containing the 
system of doctrine—essential doctrine—taught in the 
Scriptures. Another man might go a little farther and 
say that the doctrine of Christ as the Son of God was 
the one essential doctrine. He rejects the whole media- 
torial and redemptive work of Christ, but since he be- 
lieves that Christ 1s the Son of God, and since he thinks 
it the only essential doctrine, and since he finds it stated 
in the Confession of Faith, he claims that in all sincerity 
he can adopt and receive the Confession of Faith. As 
a result of this false principle we have now in the Pres- 
byterian ministry men who undoubtedly reject, or “refuse 
to affirm,” certain doctrines which the Presbyterian 
church has always declared to be essential to Christianity. 
The last General Assembly, following the declarations of 
two previous assemblies, declared that the infallibility 
of the Bible, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, His sacri- 
ficial death, His bodily resurrection, and that He worked 
miracles, were doctrines of the Presbyterian church, and 
doctrines essential to Christianity. But now it is appar- 
ent that there are not a few men in the ministry of the 
Presbyterian church who reject or refuse to affirm these 
doctrines, and yet claim their right to hold Presbyterian 
orders and confess a sincere loyalty to the church, upon 
the ground that they took, and now hold, the Confes- 
sion of Faith as containing the doctrines which they 
themselves considered essential to Christianity. What the 
church has declared by way of interpreting its creed ap- 
pears to make no difference. 

If this is to be the principle upon which the creed is 
taken, who then is barred from the Presbyterian minis- 
try? Here, for example, are two men, A and B. A be- 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 375 


lieves in the virgin birth of Christ, His sacrificial and 
expiatory death on the cross, His bodily resurrection and 
ascension, and His personal return to judge men and 
angels. All these doctrines are admittedly taught in the 
Confession of Faith. A believes that they are necessary 
and essential parts of the system of the doctrine taught 
in the Bible. When A, therefore, says that he sincerely 
accepts and receives the Confession of Faith as contain- 
ing the system of doctrine taught in the Bible he takes 
those doctrines. But now B comes forward. B knows 
that the Confession of Faith teaches that Christ was 
virgin born, that He rose bodily from the dead, that He 
died a substitutionary death on Calvary, and that He will 
come again to judge men and angels. But B does not 
himself believe these doctrines, nor does he believe that 
they are essential truths of the Christian religion as 
taught in the Bible. But the Confession of Faith does 
contain statements about God and about Christ and sin 
which he accepts. B regards these alone as the neces- 
sary and essential doctrines. Therefore B as well as A 
says that he sincerely receives the Confession of Faith 
as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Buble. 

It will be plain to the reader that if such a loose and 
easy interpretation of the ordination vow is permitted 
there is no object whatever in having a creed or a con- 
fession, for with such a standard of interpretation any 
one from a Deist to a Roman Catholic, could subscribe 
to our confession. Such a principle would reduce the 
Confession of Faith to a “scrap of paper.” But since a 
creed was carefully drawn up and adopted by the 
founders of the Presbyterian church, the object certainly 
was not to make it possible that men holding any and 
every view about Christ and the Gospel should stand and 
preach in Presbyterian pulpits. 

3. That the candidate receives the Confession of 
Faith as containing the “system” of doctrine taught in 
the Bible. The use of the word system shows that what 
is meant is more than an acceptance of isolated sections, 


376 SELECTED ARTICLES 


or fragments, or sundry doctrinal statements in the con-: 
fession, but a certain logical and defined body of the 
Scriptural truths of redemption. Doctrines about vows, 
worship, oaths, Sabbaths, magistrates, sacraments, the 
state of the dead, are all in the Confession of Faith; but 
they plainly are not peculiar to the system of truth ex- 
pounded in the Confession of Faith. No one can read 
through the Confession of Faith without being impressed 
with the fact that the authors of this document believed 
that God had made a great revelation, culminating in 
Jesus Christ, for the salvation of the world, and the first 
purpose of the confession is to state the great facts of 
that revelation and the interpretations of those facts. 
Hence the use of the word “system.” 

It was undoubtedly the purpose of the Westminster 
divines to state and defend in orderly fashion the prin- 
ciples and the doctrines of what is commonly called the 
“Reformed” theology as distinguished from the Roman, 
and also from the Lutheran and the Arminian. But the 
Confession of Faith stands upon a massive base. It does 
differentiate between the Reformed and the Lutheran 
idea of the sacraments and the Catholic and the Prot- 
estant view of the Bible and the church, and the Ar- 
minian and the Reformed view of sin and salvation. But 
underneath all that, the Confession of Faith gives grand 
and imperishable expression to the truths of our com- 
mon Christianity, the faith once for all delivered unto 
the saints. It is these truths which are being assailed 
today by men outside the church, and, most effectively, 
by men in the church. 

And what are these truths as set forth in the Con- 
fession of Faith? We are not thinking of any Presby- 
terian peculiarities, but what Chalmers in his splendid 
way called the “grand particularities” of the Christian 
faith, and without which there is no Christian faith. I 
would put the matter on the broadest possible ground, 
and say that when the ordination vow requires a man to 
declare his acceptance of the Confession of Faith as con- 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 377 


taining the system of doctrine taught in the Bible, it 
means that the Presbyterian church requires of all its 
ministers that they shall accept all that the Confession 
of Faith says about Jesus Christ as truth taught in the 
Bible. And what does the Confession of Faith say about 
Jesus Christ? It says that He is God, the second person 
of the adorable Trinity. It says that man, having sinned 
and fallen, Christ became his Mediator and Redeemer, 
and that in the discharge of that office He took upon 
Himself our human nature, yet without sin, being con- 
ceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb 
of the Virgin Mary; that as God-man He executed the 
office of a mediator and redeemer, taking our place as 
sinners and enduring grievous torments of soul and suf- 
ferings of body, and death itself; after which He arose 
from the dead, with the same body with which He suf- 
fered, with-which also He ascended into heaven, and 
there sitteth at the right hand of His Father, making 
intercession; and shall return to “judge men and angels, 
at the end of the world.” These are the great outstand- 
ing facts about Christ taught in the Confession of Faith, 
and taught in the New Testament. They constitute the 
foundation upon which stands the Christian church. The 
ordination vow, both historically interpreted and as put 
to candidates by the presbyteries, means that these facts 
and truths are a necessary part of the truth of the Bible 
and of Christianity. No man who denies any of these 
facts about Jesus Christ has a right to say that he sin- 
cerely receives and accepts the Confession of Faith, for 
he does not. He denies it. Christ is the one great fact 
and doctrine of the Confession of Faith, and Christ 
means those facts, and the truths founded upon these 
facts, which we have in the New Testament. We have 
Christ in the New Testament, and outside of that silence 
and darkness. 

In standing by their Confession of Faith, Presby- 
terians are not putting up barriers in the path that leads 
to the church or to the Kingdom of God. They are 


378 SELECTED ARTICLES 


ready to receive into the church all those whom they be- 
lieve Christ will receive into His Kingdom. They are 
not striving for medieval dogmas or outworn interpreta- 
tions of theology. They are striving for the Christ of the 
New Testament. Because of its genuine solidity and un- 
faltering loyalty to Jesus Christ, the creed of the Pres- 
byterians has never failed to attract the scorn and con- 
tempt and ridicule of those who do not like the facts of 
the New Testament and the Christ those facts present 
to a lost world. It is easier to attack a church, a creed, 
a denomination, a confession, than it is to attack directly 
Christ and the Gospels. The Presbyterian church stands 
by its creed because that creed stands by Jesus Christ. 
We do not attempt to hide from ourselves the sad and 
humiliating fact that we have ministers in our pulpits 
who are not loyal to the Confession of Faith, in that 
they either will not affirm or openly deny certain facts 
of Christ related in the New Testament and stated and 
explained in the Confession of Faith. Although just at 
present the vocal part of the church, they are a very 
small part. Loyal men in the church will do all they can 
to persuade them of the inconsistency of their position, 
so that they shall quietly withdraw. But if they do not 
withdraw, and if they persist in their defiance of the 
church, then, if the Presbyterian church is to endure, it 
must proceed against them. No church can endure half 
rationalistic and half evangelical. Nor can there be any 
true peace with these two parties in the same church. 
How can two walk together except they be agreed? 

In the present crisis in the Protestant church the 
Presbyterian church, by reason of its historic position 
and its magnificent statement of Christian truth in the 
Confession of Faith, is destined to be the leader in the 
conflict. Men of all churches will rally about its ancient 
banner and take refuge in its great deliverances. The 
Presbyterian church has come to the kingdom for such 
an hour as this! Never in its long history has the Pres- 
byterian church had a greater opportunity to serve the 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 379 


Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us pray that 
the church shall have the faith and the courage to em- 
brace that opportunity. When the storm has passed the 
Presbyterian church will stand to proclaim to mankind 
those great truths of divine revelation to which our 
fathers witnessed with their intellect, confessed with 
their faith, for which they suffered and died, and which 
are the alone hope of a lost and fallen world. 


PELE SAGE “ON THE PRESENT STLUATION 
i Nasr i CEO iG Fist 


Stand fast in the faith.’—I Cor. 16: 13. 


“Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh 
you, a reason of the hope that ts in you.”—I St. Peter 3:15. 


“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which 
ts Jesus Christ.”—I Cor. 3:11. 

There has been, during the past few weeks, much 
public discussion of matters affecting the faith and life 
of the church. 

We have had in time past discussions upon questions 
of lesser moment—dquestions of ritual, of Biblical criti- 
cism, of speculative theology within the sphere of that 
wide liberty which this church allows. But the questions 
which are now before us are different. 

They touch the very soul and center of our faith as 
Christians. They relate to the person of our Divine 
Lord Himself, His supernatural birth, His bodily resur- 
rection, His ascension into heaven. Men are right in feel- 
ing the importance of the present questions. These are 
not matters of doctrinal detail or opinion. They are 
matters of life or death to the Christian religion. They 
are the basic facts upon which our faith in Christ rests, 
without which the Gospel would cease to have reality or 
meaning. 

Christianity stands or falls with the facts about Jesus 
Christ as declared in the creed and in the Scriptures. 


1By the Rt. Rev. William T. Manning, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of New 
York. Christian Work. 116: 239-43. February 23, 1924. 


380 SELECTED ARTICLES 


If these things did not happen, Christianity has no basis 
whatever, the whole message of the New Testament is a 
mistake. It is these great central realities of the Chris- 
tian faith which are now being questioned within the 
church itself. 

I think I can say that, during the course of these dis- 
cussions, I have been in no haste to speak. I speak now 
with deep realization of my responsibility, and only be- 
cause it seems to be my duty. I want to speak only in 
that spirit which should guide and rule us in the church. 
It is required of one in the Bishop’s office that he shall 
speak the truth in love, but it is required also that he 
shall speak it faithfully and without fear. 

What I wish to do, and feel it my duty to do, is to 
declare plainly what is the faith which this church holds, 
and what is the obligation to teach the faith which rests 
upon those of us who hold office as her ministers. Let 
me, at the outset, refer to one matter as to which I feel 
that I must express myself once for all. 

It has been intimated to me, and to the public, that 
a clear position on my part upon these questions might 
result in financial loss to the work of the diocese, and 
especially to the campaign now commencing for the build- 
ing of the cathedral. I do not believe it. But if this sug- 
gestion were true my answer would be that a thousand 
cathedrals are of less importance than one foundation 
fact of the Christian faith. Better that the cathedral 
should never be built than that a bishop of this church 
should fail to bear his witness for the full truth of Jesus 
Christ. 

In considering the present questions it should be em- 
phasized and kept always in mind that the issue involved 
is not liberty of conscience or freedom of thought. There 
is no restriction upon the conscience or the liberty of any 
of us. Each one of us is free to follow the truth as he 
sees it, and to follow it wherever it may lead him. 

The issue is whether those of us who, of our own 
free choice, have accepted office as ministers of this 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 381 


church are under obligation to teach the faith which this 
church holds. 

Three points I must refer to briefly in order to make 
the situation clear: 

1. Few, if any of us, in this church hold the position 
of those who are popularly described as Fundamentalists. 
We believe in the widest freedom of inquiry and of 
scholarly research. We welcome eagerly all the light that 
science and scholarship can give. We are in no fear 
that truth, from any source, will conflict with the truth 
made known to us in Christ. We believe fully in apply- 
ing modern knowledge to religion, but we insist that the 
power of God and His revelation of Himself shall not 
be limited by the measure of our human reason or of 
our necessarily partial knowledge of the physical order. 

2. Our standard of belief is great and essential, but 
very brief and simple. We do not require any mechani- 
cal theory as to the inspiration of the Scriptures. We 
do not demand allegiance to any elaborate doctrinal sys- 
tems of a past age, such as those contained in the con- 
fessions of faith, which were drawn up in the sixteenth 
century. The Thirty-nine Articles are not, and have 
never been, our creed. The only formal doctrinal re- 
quirement of one who enters this church is acceptance 
of the Apostles’ Creed, which contains the great facts 
about our Lord Jesus Christ as these facts are declared 
in the Scriptures and as they have been held and taught 
by the whole Christian church from the beginning. 

3. It should be unnecessary to say that the present 
discussions involve no issue whatever between “high” 
and “low” church views. The Apostles’ Creed is neither 
“high church” nor “low church.” It is the faith itself 
which is in question. The Apostles’ Creed is the creed 
of the church herself, and of all the members of the 
church alike. 

In these recent discussions three questions have been 
clearly raised: 

1. Does this church believe and teach the Gospel of 


382 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Christ as divinely given from above, a supernatural reve- 
lation from God, which is vital to mankind and on which 
the hope of the world depends? Or does this church re- 
gard the Gospel as the product of human reason and 
speculation ? 

2. Are the ministers of this church under obliga- 
tion to uphold and teach the Christian faith as contained 
in the creeds and the Scriptures? Or are they engaged 
only in a search after truth and commissioned to teach 
whatever their own private opinions may dictate? 

3. What latitude of interpretation have we in our 
acceptance and teaching of the church’s creed, and is 
there some necessary limit to what may legitimately be 
called interpretation? 

No one can be in any doubt as to the answer to the 
first question. This church believes and proclaims the 
fact that “the Jesus of history is none other than God 
and Saviour on Whom, and on faith in Whom, depends 
the whole world’s hope of redemption and salvation.” 

With the apostles, with the New Testament, with the 
whole Christian church from the first this church be- 
lieves that it was the Eternal One Himself, ‘““God of God, 
Light of Light, Very God of Very God,” “Who for us 
men and for our salvation came down from heaven, 
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin 
Mary, and was made man.” The very message of the 
Gospel is that it was God who came Himself in the per- 
son of Jesus Christ to dwell among men. This is the 
“good news” which the church proclaimed in the begin- 
ning and which has brought life and hope to men ever 
since. 

To reject the supernatural from the Gospel is to re- 
ject the Gospel itself. Our religion as Christians is not 
a matter of mere belief in doctrines or of assent to in- 
tellectual propositions. It is a matter of relationship 
with the risen and reigning Christ. This is the very 
meaning of our religion. It means that we believe in 
Him, pray to Him, follow Him, look to Him as our 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 383 


Saviour and our Lord. Only if He is God can He stand 
in this relation to us. Only if He is God can He have 
any real place in our lives at all. Only if He is God 
can we explain or justify the prayers, the hymns, the 
sacraments, the whole faith and worship of this church. 
We believe in Jesus Christ, crucified for our sakes, risen 
and ascended. We believe in Him not only as He was 
here on earth, but as He is now at the right hand of God. 
We believe not only in Christ the Teacher, but in Christ 
the Redeemer, and Lord, and Judge, to whom is given 
all power in heaven and in earth. 

This is the Gospel as this church has received it. This 
is the Gospel with which the Christian church is put in 
trust by her Lord and Head, and which she is com- 
manded to preach to all the world. 

Let us now consider the second question which has 
been raised, “Are the ministers of this church under 
obligation to uphold and teach the Christian faith as the 
church holds it, and as it is contained in the creeds and 
the Scriptures?” 

The Pastoral Letter recently put forth by the House 
of Bishops says, “It is irreconcilable with the vows vol- 
untarily made at ordination for a minister of this church 
to deny or to suggest doubt as to the facts and truths 
declared in the Apostles’ Creed.” Anyone who will read 
the services for the ordination of ministers will, I think, 
recognize that this statement is true, and that the bishops 
were bound so to declare. At the service for the order- 
ing of priests each one gives his pledge that he will “min- 
ister the doctrine, and sacraments, and the discipline of 
Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this church 
hath received the same.” And in addition to the pledges 
which he makes in the ordination service every minister 
of this church, bishop, priest or deacon is required, be- 
fore his ordination, to make and sign the following 
declaration: “I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old 
and New Testaments to be the word of God, and I do 
solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline 


384 SEEECTEDWARTICERS 


and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America.” 

Questions as to the history of the Apostles’ and 
Nicene Creeds need not here be considered. Beyond all 
question, these two creeds contain the doctrine of this 
church as to our Lord Jesus Christ. At every baptism 
the minister is required to ask the person who comes to 
be baptized, “Dost thou believe all the articles of the 
Christian faith as contained in the Apostles’ Creed?” At 
every service of public worship the minister and people 
are required solemnly*to repeat together either this or 
the Nicene Creed. The Eighth Article of Religion says: 
“The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called 
the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and 
believed; for they may be proved by most certain war- 
rants of Holy Scripture.” 

The formularies of this church could not, I think, 
make it more clear that those of us who hold office as 
her ministers are under obligation to teach the Christian 
faith as contained in the creeds and the Scriptures. 

On this understanding each one of us received, and 
holds, his commission. So long as we continue in the 
teaching office of this church this obligation rests upon 
us. This is not an obligation which the bishops impose 
upon the clergy, or from which any bishop may relieve 
the clergy. It is an obligation which the church lays 
upon all of us alike, and which we have accepted freely 
and of our own choice. 

As Bishop Henry C. Potter wrote in his great charge 
to the clergy and laity, entitled “Law and Loyalty,” which 
I wish every member of this diocese would read: 


The church in this land has her standards of faith embodied 
in the Creed, and Offices, and Articles, which, taken together 
with Holy Scripture, are her Rule of Faith. In the interpretation 
of these there has always been and there always will be, a cer- 
tain latitude of construction, for which every wise man will 
be devoutly thankful. But that that latitude exists is no more 
certain than that it has its limits, and that the transgression of 
these limits, by whatever ingenuity it has been accomplished, 
has wrought only evil, in lowering the moral tone of the church, 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 385 


and in debilitating the individual conscience, is, I think, no less 
certain; 


Those are the words of one who was no partisan, 
no narrow ecclesiastic, but a man of singularly broad 
sympathies and wide vision. And after speaking of the 
great liberty properly enjoyed by the clergy, Bishop’ Pot- 
ter continues: 

But at this point there enter those associated obligations® 
which are a part of the compact whereby any individual is ad- 
mitted into a fellowship, and clothed, it may be, with privileges; 
and dignities, which he could not enjoy without it. These are 
not conferred upon him unconditionally. So far as they are 
those of men in holy orders they are qualified by very definite 
obligations—obligations which cannot be disregarded, or lightly 
construed, without, I maintain, sooner or later, weakening all 
sense of moral obligation. 

It should be clearly recognized that the Pastoral Let- 
ter of the House of Bishops deals with the responsibili- 
ties of the clergy as official teachers of the church, rather 
than with the responsibilities of the laity, which are of 
a different degree and less formal. 

There is an important and manifest difference be- 
tween the position of the laity and the clergy in these 
matters. There has never been in this church, and there 
certainly is not now, a desire to be over rigid or exact- 
ing with the laity in matters of doctrine. And no one 
among us, I: believe, would feel anything but brotherly 
sympathy with a minister of the church troubled with 
doubts which may be only temporary, which most of us 
have had in one form or another, and which usually 
disappear with growth in spiritual experience and in 
knowledge. But for a bishop or other minister openly 
to deny or cast doubt upon or suggest doubts to others 
as to the church’s faith is a different matter. The church 
must hold up before men the full faith of Jesus Christ, 
and she must look to her official ministers to teach this 
faith as she herself believes and has received it. 

We come now to the third question which has been 
raised by these discussions, “What latitude of interpre- 


386 SELECTED" ARTICLES 


tation have we in our acceptance and teaching .of the 
church’s creed, and is there some necessary limit to what 
may legitimately be called interpretation?” 

There has always been great liberty of thought and 
opinion in this church, and none of us would be willing 
to have it otherwise. There is no church in Christen- 
dom which is so comprehensive as the one in which we 
serve. There is wide room for differences of apprehen- 
sion and interpretation of the articles of the creed, but 
manifestly this liberty has its limits. To interpret means 
to expound, to show the meaning of, to elucidate. 

That, surely, cannot be called interpretation which 
is in reality a denial or a rejection of the fact which the 
words of the creed are evidently intended to declare. 
We are not at liberty to interpret plain and clear affir- 
mations to mean their exact opposites. ‘That is to play 
with language. Let me quote the words of that clear 
teacher of the faith, the late Dr. William Reed Hunting- 
ton, in his volume of sermons, “A Good Shepherd,” pub- 
lished in 1906: 


Doubtless recent discovery has made it absolutely necessary 
to interpret certain articles of the Christian faith afresh, to trans- 
late, so to speak, the language in which they are clothed, into 
the phraseology of to-day. But let us be exceedingly careful 
upon two points, first, never to accept any interpretation of the 
Creed that puts less meaning into it than it held. for us before, 
such explanations as explain away the thing to be explained, and 
secondly, never to allow an interpretation to pass over into a 
negation. Interpret as much as you please, as long as you know 
that you are holding on to the reality which the Creed under- 
takes to teach; but, as you value your soul, never let anybody, 
clerical or lay, persuade you to say, “I believe’ with respect to 
any statement which you know in your heart you deny. Noth- 
ing has happened yet in the world of discovery and research 
to make it impossible for an honest man rightly informed as to 
the meaning of the Apostles’ Creed, to repeat ex animo the 
twelve affirmations therein contained, unless indeed, one has as- 
sumed in advance that things out of the common never have 
occurred, or can occur. But if we cannot prove the so called 
miraculous, neither can we disprove it. The foremost of the 
Agnostics acknowledged as much as that. And if any think 
that they can build a religion upon a denial of the statements 
made in the Creed, let them try. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 387 


There is one sentence in that statement of Dr. Hunt- 
ington’s which should be especially emphasized: ‘‘Noth- 
ing has happened yet in the world of discovery and re- 
search to make it impossible for an honest man, rightly 
informed as to the meaning of the Apostles’ Creed, to 
repeat ex animo the twelve affirmations therein con- 
tained.” 

These words are as true today as when they were 
written. There has been no discovery of science or of 
scholarship which has made belief more difficult. On the 
contrary, there has been much to lead strongly in the 
direction of belief. 

Nothing that is new has been suggested in these re- 
cent discussions. There is nothing that is modern in this 
present movement. The difficulties presented are, most 
of them, as old as Christianity itself. In every age the 
church has met, and answered, these same objections to 
her faith. The serious feature of the present situation 
is the propagation of these doubts by some of those who 
hold office in the ministry of the church. 

It is said by some that the church already allows an 
interpretation which denies the fact in the case of some 
articles of the creed, and must, therefore, allow the same 
liberty in the case of other articles. This is incorrect 
and shows lack of clear thought upon the matter. There 
is no article of the creed as to which the church allows 
an interpretation which denies the fact. Permitting all 
lawful liberty of interpretation and explanation in the 
case of every article, this church calls upon all her clergy 
and people to believe the fact that our Lord went into 
the place of departed spirits, the fact that He is now at 
the right hand of God, the fact that He will one day come 
again in judgment, and she certainly calls upon us to be- 
lieve, and expects us to believe and teach, the fact that 
He Who for our sakes came down from heaven was born 
of the Virgin Mary, the fact of His bodily resurrection 
from the tomb, and the fact of His return to the place 


388 SELECTED ARTICLES 


which He had, before the worlds were, at the right hand 
of the Father. 

A most significant statement upon this question of 
interpretation has just been published, signed by twenty- 
seven leading Unitarian ministers of Boston and else- 
where. They, of course, do not accept the Apostles’ 
Creed. But upon this point of legitimate interpretation 
they use the following serious words: 

With all courtesy and considerateness let us make it plain 
that religious teachers who play with words in the most solemn 
relations of life, who make their creeds mean what they were 
not originally intended to mean, or mentally reject a formula 
of belief while outwardly repeating it, cannot expect to retain 
the allegiance of men who are accustomed to straight thinking 
and square dealing. 

This statement by eminent Unitarian ministers agrees 
precisely with the Pastoral Letter of the House of 
Bishops upon this point, and is indeed strikingly similar 
to that letter in its language. 

Can anyone question the truth of the following 
declaration in the Pastoral Letter: 

To explain away the statement “Conceived by the Holy 
Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary” as if it referred to a birth 
in the ordinary way, of two human parents, under perhaps ex- 
ceptionally holy conditions, is plainly an abuse of language. An 
ordinary birth could not have been so described, nor can the 
words of the Creed fairly be so understood. 

We are told today that belief in the virgin birth is 
unimportant. But the church in whose name we speak, 
does not so teach. Brief as the summary of her essen- 
tial faith is, the church has included in it the affirmation 
“born of the Virgin Mary.” Throughout her worship, 
as in the Te Deum and the proper preface for the Christ- 
mas season, she emphasizes this great truth. 

Nothing, indeed, which touches the fact of our Lord’s 
Godhead can be unimportant. He in Whom we believe 
did not begin His life in Bethlehem. We cannot say that 
He could have taken our nature upon Him in no other 
way than that which the Scriptures record. But if we 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 389 


believe in Him as eternal, pre-existent God becoming 
man, and think deeply enough upon this stupendous fact, 
so far from finding difficulty in the account of His birth 
given in the Scriptures, we find that this alone can satisfy 
our minds, as Dr. DuBose has shown in his great 
book, “The Gospel in the Gospels.” 

The importance of this article of the creed is indi- 
cated by the fact that wherever belief in the virgin birth 
becomes weak, belief seems also to become weak in the 
resurrection and ascension of our Lord. This present 
movement does not mean only rejection of the virgin 
birth, or of this or that miracle of the Gospel. As Bishop 
Gore has so ably shown, it has its roots in a determined 
presupposition against the possibility of miracle, against 
the supernatural as such, and so against the very mes- 
sage of the Gospel as declared in the New Testament. A 
Christ Who was not born of the Virgin, Who did not rise 
in the body on the third day, and Who did not ascend 
into heaven, is not the Christ of the New Testament, 
not the Christ in Whom the church believes and has al- 
ways believed. 

The creed-is. all. of one piece. -It all. centers,in the 
one supreme truth of the deity of Jesus Christ. We can- 
not deny or set aside one of its articles without injuring 
or endangering the whole. The occurrences of the past 
few weeks have, I think, helped to make this clear. Con- 
ferences are being held for the full and careful con- 
sideration of these issues. But while these conferences 
are-in progress a statement still more gravely disturbing 
in its character than those previously made has been sent 
out from one of our theological seminaries in a pamphlet 
widely distributed. It is there proposed that the creed 
of the church shall now be made permissive, to be be- 
lieved and taught or not as different congregations or 
their clergy may decide. It is difficult to understand 
how such a proposal can be made by those who are 
“ministers and teachers in this church. It would seem 
that those who make it cannot fully realize what it is 


390 SELECTED ARTICLES 


that they suggest. Why should the church retain her 
creed at all, if she is ready to relegate it to a merely 
optional use? 

Far, indeed, from this proposal is the teaching of 
Phillips Brooks in his great sermon on “Keeping the 
Faith,” which I wish might be read by everyone through- 
out the church: 

The first thing that strikes us [Bishop Brooks says] is that 
when St. Paul said that he had kept the faith he evidently be- 
lieved that there was a faith to keep. ... To him the truth 
which he believed was not a doctrine which he had discovered, 
but the faith which he Had kept. The faith was a body of 
truth given to him which he had to hold, and to use, and to 
apply, but which he had not made, and was not to improve. ... 
Our Creed, our credo, anything which we call by such a sacred 
name, is not what we have thought, but what our Lord has told 
us. The true Creed must come down from above and not out 
from within. 

If this church should cease to hold the truth about 
Jesus Christ, as declared in the Apostles’ and Nicene 
Creeds, she would cease to be the same church that she 
has been, she would cut herself off from her own past 
and from fellowship with the rest of the Anglican com- 
munion, she would repudiate her heritage as a part of 
the one Catholic and Apostolic church throughout the 
world. 

We need have no fear as to the position of the church 
upon the questions which have been raised. Painful, 
and in some ways harmful, as the recent discussions have 
been, they have helped to make the situation clear, and 
their chief result will be to arouse many to more earnest 
thought and to fuller faith in Jesus Christ, God and 
Saviour of us all. 

It is our duty, clergy and laity alike, to study and 
think out clearly the sure grounds of our faith so that, 
as St. Peter expresses it, we may be ready to give to 
every man that asketh “a reason of the hope that is in 
tse 

It is not changes in the creed that we need today, but 
deeper and more personal faith in Jesus Christ. He 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM _ . 301 


Who, for us men, came down from heaven is not One for 
us merely to theorize and speculate about. If His claims 
are true, He is One for us to follow and worship. If 
we are to know His truth we must, as He says, become 
as little children. We must receive Him in the spirit 
of humility, not of self-assertion and intellectual pride. 
His message does not contradict our reason, but it does 
infinitely transcend it. We can learn the full meaning of 
His truth only on our knees. 

We are told often that, in her teaching, the church 
must consider the young men and women of the present 
day. We must indeed consider them. It is for the young 
people of our time and for the coming generation that 
I would especially speak. We must give them the Gos- 
pel of Christ in all its divine reality and truth, not some 
philosophic restatement of the Christian religion, re- 
duced, rationalized and deprived of the very secret of 
its power. Let us beware how we give the impression, 
the wholly wrong and false impression, to our young 
people that the great facts and truths of the creed are 
unimportant, or that they are unworthy of belief. Let 
us sympathize wholly with those of the younger genera- 
tion and stand with them in their desire to be completely 
loyal to truth, but let us help them to see the supreme 
truth in Jesus Christ, “the same yesterday, and today, 
and forever.” If some of them have doubts, we shall 
help them by showing them the full truth of the Gospel, 
not by offering them this truth in reduced and weakened 
form. It is the work of the church to lift the thought 
of the time up to the level of her divine message, not 
to bring her message down to the level of the thought of 
the time. 

Brethren, it all comes back to the one question, ‘“What 
think ye of Christ? Whose Son is He?” 

If by the incarnation, when we use that term, we 
mean only that God was in Christ in the same way that 
He is in all of us, if Jesus Christ is, after all, only a 
man in whom the spirit of God was especially manifest, 


302 SELECTED ARTICLES 


then the creed, and with it the church’s whole faith and 
worship, become foolish, unmeaning, superstitious, as 
some say that they are. 

But if, on the other hand, we believe in Jesus Christ 
as this church believes in Him there is no word in the 
creed which need cause us doubt or difficulty. 

These two great, simple creeds, the Apostles’ and 
the Nicene, are the statement of the Christian faith as 
it has been held and taught by the whole Christian church 
throughout the world from the beginning, as it is con- 
tained in the Scriptures, as it is believed, and has always 
been believed by this church. They are the declaration 
of the faith in which our fathers and mothers have lived 
and died, in which our children have been baptized and 
confirmed and brought to the holy communion, by which 
our Christian civilization has been formed, and upon 
which it depends for its inspiration, its guidance and its 
further progress. 

And my message to you, and to the clergy and people 
of this diocese, is expressed in those words of St. Paul 
and St. Peter which come to us across the whole life 
of the church from the first days, and which are as full 
of meaning today as when the two apostles wrote them: 
“Stand fast in the faith.’ “Be ready always to give an 
answer to every man that asketh you, a reason of the 
hope that is in you.” “Other foundation can no man lay 
than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 


A UNITARIAN VIEW? 


These modern liberals are in no small degree reaf- 
firming the principles in defense of which the Unitarian 
pioneers were obliged, for honor’s sake, to go apart and 


1 From Christian Register. 103: 29. January 10, 1924. A Fraternal Let- 
ter to the Churches. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 393 


after the way which men call heresy worship the God 
of their fathers. We rejoice that these earnest truth- 
seekers have accepted so many of the new conclusions 
of criticism and science, and that they are bravely as- 
serting their right to liberty of thought and speech. We 
acclaim the abundant learning and progressive spirit of 
the liberal leaders, especially of those who accept with- 
out qualification the verified findings of modern scholar- . 
ship, and we want in every way to make them aware 
of our appreciation and our fraternal good-will. 

Let us nevertheless assert for ourselves and our 
brethren the necessity of clear and scrupulous honesty 
in matters of faith. Let us affirm as the fruit of our 
experience that methods of compromise can never point 
the way to the truth that makes men free. Let us make 
plain that there cannot be any halfway stopping-places in 
the acceptance or the rejection of disputed doctrines. 
Either the Bible is inerrant or it is not; either the fall 
of man is a fact or it is a myth; either the law of evo- 
lution is everywhere valid or it is the baseless fabric 
of a dream. With all courtesy and considerateness let 
us make it plain that religious teachers who play with 
words in the most solemn relations of life, who make 
their creeds mean what they were not originally in- 
tended to mean, or mentally reject a formula of belief 
while outwardly repeating it, cannot expect to retain the 
allegiance of men who are accustomed to straight think- 
ing and square dealing. “In proportion,” said Channing, 
“as a man suppresses his convictions in order to save 
his orthodoxy from suspicion, or distorts language from 
its common use that he may stand well with his party, 
in that proportion he clouds and degrades his intellect 
as well as undermines the integrity of his character.” 


Eee GAS) Uwe Sei Wen aor 
oa, 


a : > ¢ > 
’ a 1 ve eres » ay cy 
4 be , * 





















¥ eth y \@ Pwo ol vol 
‘ cy Mai 1 ihe , Fa a ) 
ag . ‘ : vn 4 9 ae a ’ Nie 
WINE Oe a ay ae 


me —@ 
> 


a ie ith ies Mattia at 


we ik! cin 
Lah ‘i seeaaten 4 pki iA Witte ‘bad "hd eae a8 om. 


itn He yet’ Shy SPU, TAME E HAE: eS 
singel) Heset si tratinett re hs east ae megs ae ee 
a2 ee iacass ES ae pee: bar: Ae. yicheceiy — 
OY hE AS nee td RR De? Dabeet va aa 
PRP in SS ucee nT ie, apes edie e Au heals, otis 


LAT PE ORAL coe, Key piss tae aA inl berets Rasheed anil ed ; 
‘ +; an ‘ 
sat S10 ie 4 ee. af VEIT 1} romiih fa te dine giced gh Murer a te ig 
esl eet Ot ete Sapte dete out aa 
: LOSE Ta ee ite On ROouNRS 


cc 1 
SH) Bsa se SE pists rege {ees i Erbe raat ia 
EAT ISR | earie FSS Catch MATS ES» LESS ve mies te 
y + ; oy o q ‘ nk be 3 * ; iy ; “ + 
BURNER FITS Sesh, iG, ASR ep ae 8 eo wit ar - 


Fentress 2 PAL bee Fe Arse) sas Fi, Rie, Ae ¥ ats 


4 SS 
tis ests PTY eae Tenree ere erat. eae RS 
ne ra + nw ‘ab > as ety iJ ; 4 ; 
eS HRN GL! PRE ELA ae ae Wy Pe OUR ery : 
AD A Ps ; rityehe: $ iy busy) + (ee, hd Sas cpiyts “y% “eh. I. 2 cok oh gPas : 


pene CL" SY Rida SB aed Spinone eer Aas sikiing 
a ere + a DP . +4 “4 
apa yetign a “IG oF Bare 4 aa) LA t rate che +e. “+8 Li mt | Si on 


PER. gots Pak due at Ameer iee a ea Soya a 
pL ROE eR TEC BOE eae tt cel aOR Rhee Hoh biel) ine 


Go Rude yay SEF RRO 
FOSS UN Secret ae Gs NER) Aiea 





SW WAC t» he ain’ 

Ek: CATCOR AE | RSE me i 7 "ih 

D 0 me Da - - ‘te ct ~~ 

a iehees. £2 ley: Mae teed ea merit atiar nine an Bedh 
¢ eas , < eS ee 

mes tts. St}. 2 TS Set SOR eee Satipee 


AVA SGP See gre es Pte eee tea apes Pn B 
Th oe nigel etinleis tegiathne: Bane peacay by 


PALE EG FES, Sean ‘bout ets va she =o pha are f {i 
. 4 LA y 
ez a ¥ ¢, ee ys i : 
RIG ik Dieeilg. Bl sth eon eh)? aT: 
‘ - 8 a ro vi © a—uees : 
Fey) pr TEs eet ae th iF S : tha ait eet tals 
\ i rete e 4 Va tad , is4 a) Asy 


wget 
. ; » « y : : 
a , a 4 eee th ee Cie re. is At 2 
ete a wy f _ ogy’ , 
. oe a MBs <| Sie . Sis. of by fe: Sioa ant 
% t. ai, iste Mang get Ady ae Be yok. ay Fz 
=< a ~ é‘ 
} 5 
‘ 7 ; 
. ‘ Ps 
¥ Pas 
or nnn) 
ec u a NM 


B. FOR THE RIGHT OF THE MODERN- 
ISTS TO REMAIN 


BRIEF STATEMENTS* 


Dr. WILLIAM E. BARTON, CONGREGATIONALIST: 


The fifteenth chapter of Acts is an authoritative 
declaration that modernism and fundamentalism are both 
legitimate within the church, provided each exercises 
toward the other a spirit of Christian love. Neither 
fundamentalism availeth anything nor modernism, but 
faith working by love. The agreement reached in that 
chapter concerning a willingness to admit to equal fel- 
lowship in the church men of widely varying opinion 
and practice is as valid today as when it was written. 


Dr. HENRY SLOANE COFFIN, OF THE MADISON AVENUE 
PRESBYTERIAN CuHuRCH, NEw York: 


There seems to be room for both types in the church, 
and each needs the other. .. . Both bear witness to God's 
presence with them in consecrated lives, and both be- 
long in the one body of Christ. It is a time for mutual 
forbearance, for an effort calmly to understand each 
other; above all for the recognition that both must hold 
together if the church is to fulfil her task of redeeming 
the world to God. 


1 Homiletic Review. 86: 186-90. September, 1923. The Battle Within 
the Churches, 


396 SELECTED, ARTICLES 


AN EXCLUSIVE OR AN INCLUSIVE CHURATERSS 


. . . Two conceptions of the church are in conflict 
today in modern Protestantism, and one of the most 
crucial problems of America’s religious life in this next 
generation is the decision as to which of these two ideas 
of the church shall triumph. We may call one the ex- 
clusive and the other the inclusive conception of the 
church. The exclusive conception of the church lies 
along lines like these: that we are the true church; that 
we have the true doctrines and the true practices as no 
other church possesses them; that we are constituted as 
a church just because we have these uniquely true opin- 
ions and practices; that we all in the church agree about 
these opinions and that when we joined the church we 
gave allegiance to them; that nobody has any business 
to belong to our church unless he agrees with us; that 
if there are people outside the church who disagree, they 
ought to be kept outside and if there are people in the 
church who come to disagree, they ought to be put out- 
side. That is the exclusive idea of the church, and there 
are many who need no further description of it for they 
were brought up in it and all their youthful religious 
life was surrounded by its rigid sectarianism. 

Over against this conception is the inclusive idea of 
the church, which runs along lines like these: that the 
Christian church ought to be the organizing center for 
all the Christian life of a community; that a church is 
not based upon theological uniformity but upon devotion 
to the Lord Jesus, to the life with God and man for 
which He stood, and to the work which He gave us to 
do; that wherever there are people who have that spirit- 
ual devotion, who possess that love, who want more of 
it, who desire to work and worship with those of kin- 
dred Christian aspirations, they belong inside the family 
of the Christian church. 


1 By Harry Emerson Fosdick. Christianity and Progress. p. 232-3. 
Copyright (1922), Fleming H. Revell Company. Reprinted by permission of 
the publishers. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 397 


THE COMPREHENSIVE CREED OF 
PRES DY TERIANS? 


“Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are 
yours: Whether Paul or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or 
life, or death, or things present or things to come; all are yours; 
And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God’s.’—I Corinthians 3: 21-3. 


.. . Carefully studying the Confession of Faith, we 
find clearly marked in it two strands or tendencies; the 
one is distinguished by its external and legal character, 
the other by its spiritual and vital character. Let us set 
each of them in an extreme form. 

The one looks upon the Bible as a law book, infallible 
in its authority. It views God as far removed from His 
world and from men, coming into relation with mankind 
only on the basis of arbitrary action on God’s part. It. 
looks on sin as a violation of the law of God, for which 
one must give account to Him. Atonement it views as 
the satisfaction of a legal penalty; salvation means de- 
liverance from punishment due, a restoration to good 
standing in the sight of the Judge. Christ is a mediator 
in the legal or forensic sense. His work is essentially a 
device whereby a certain exchange takes place, the guilt 
of the believer being assumed by Christ, and the right- 
eousness of Christ being imputed to the believer. Those, 
and those only, are saved who have been chosen for such 
salvation by the sovereign will of God; “by the decree 
of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men 
and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and 
others foreordained to everlasting death,’ and “their 
number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either 
increased or diminished.” The rest of mankind are 
utterly helpless to do anything toward salvation. Espe- 
cially is it true that no one who is outside the pale of 
Christian knowledge can be saved in any way whatso-: 
ever, and there is a strong tendency in this strand of the 


1By Rev. William P. Merrill, D.D., Brick Presbyterian Church, New 
York. Christian Work. 114: 555-8. May 5, 1923. 


398 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Confession to identify salvation with security in the life 
to come. “It pleased God in the beginning to create, or 
make of nothing, the world, and all things therein, in 
the space of six days.” The sin of our first parents God 
permitted, “having purposed to order it to his own glory.” 
“The guilt of this sin was imputed, and the death in 
corruption conveyed to all their posterity.” The doctrine 
of election is carried so far that even individuals dying 
in infancy are saved or not, according to whether they 
do or do not belong to the number of the elect. Others, 
not elected, never truly come to Christ, and therefore 
cannot be saved. Faith means believing to be true what- 
soever is revealed in the Word of God. 

Out of these statements there clearly emerges a con- 
sistent system of thought, rigid, severe, mechanical, legal- 
istic. And this is what many think of as “the theology 
of the Presbyterian Church” to which we promise to be 
loyal. 

But the student of this old document finds all through 
it another and vastly different set of ideas and beliefs. It 
is immensely greater in quantity than the other. It is 
far more strongly stated, and it is quite cheerfully in- 
consistent with the extreme form of the system of 
thought just stated. It is less precise, just because it 
is spiritual; for the more religious a truth is the more 
difficult it is to state it in precise terms. 

This is what we find in the second set of ideas: Re- 
ligious authority rests ultimately in the soul of man, as 
led and illumined by the spirit of God. “God hath en- 
dued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it 
is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, 
determined to good or evil.” The Bible is not a law book, 
embodying God’s past decisions. It is a living book, 
through which God now speaks, revealing His will and 
‘His love. Our assurance of the infallible authority of 
God’s Word comes from the Spirit of God, speaking to 
us as we read the Scriptures. God is not far off; He is 
seen in His world, He is the Lord of all life, ‘the alone 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 3909 


fountain of all being.” Creation is His continuous, 
never-ending self-revelation. This world in which we 
live is nothing more nor less than the unfolding in fact 
of His gracious and holy purpose. Sin is alienation from 
God, a loss of vital connection with Him. Salvation is 
restoration to His fellowship through a renewal of the 
spiritual life. Christ is the mediator between God and 
man in a personal and vital sense, the Prophet, Priest 
and King, through Whom the grace of God enters and 
transforms the lives of men. The Christian experience 
is not a legal arrangement, but a personal matter; it is 
vital and warm, the life of a son in the home of a father. 
The church is not primarily a visible organization, but 
rather an invisible fellowship, a body made up of all 
those who know the grace of God through Christ. No 
one can number or know the multitude of its members, 
nor can anyone limit the grace of the spirit of God, who 
will have all men to be saved, a spirit who worketh when 
and where and how He pleaseth. All who die in infancy 
are saved through the grace of God in Christ. God 
freely offers in the Gospel His grace to all men. “He 
desires not the death of any sinner, but has provided in 
Christ a salvation sufficient for all, adapted to all, and 
freely offered in the Gospel to all, and no man is con- 
demned except on the ground of his sin.” Christ’s sacri- 
fice is not the payment of a legal debt, but an offering 
of the love of God made through the eternal spirit. 
Faith is above all “accepting, receiving, and resting upon 
Christ alone for eternal life.” Above all particular doc- 
trines rises the great principle that “God alone is Lord 
of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines 
and commandments of men.” The Lord Jesus Christ 
is the only head of the church. The communion of the 
church—its fellowship—is to be extended “unto all those 
who in every place call upon the name of the Lord 
Jesus.” Creeds and all decisions of church bodies are 
to be received with reverent submission only if they are 
consonant with the Word of God. The spirit of God 


400 SELECTED ARTICLES 


is “the source of all good thoughts, pure desires, and 
holy counsels in men.” It is clearly understood that any- 
one who-subscribes to this confession, subscribes only to 
it as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy 
Scriptures. 

There is a system of Christian truth to which almost 
any modern Christian can heartily subscribe. Here, then, 
in the one Confession of Faith we find these two widely 
divergent strains or tendencies. What are the implica- 
tions of that fact? One of them certainly is very clear— 
that no one can hold with equal heartiness, to the whole 
Confession. If some one who holds to the first of these 
two forms of theology says to his brother who holds to 
the second, “You are disloyal because you do not em- 
phasize this stricter part of the Confession,” his brother 
may with even greater vigor reply, “And you are dis- 
loyal if you do not hold to this gracious, generous, cath- 
olic part of our creed.” The fact is, that the truest, 
finest, highest loyalty which a Presbyterian can show is 
loyalty to that spirit which includes both elements in its 
creed, and so makes room for both parties in the church. 
It is absolutely clear, from study of this Confession, that 
our church, by its very nature, is based upon a com- 
promise—a generous agreement between different 
schools. It is easy to see why always there have been 
two strong parties in the Presbyterian church, the con- 
servative party, concerned for the preservation of ortho- 
doxy, interested in the formal elements of the church’s 
creed, and the liberal party, more concerned for the 
spiritual elements and eager for the new developments 
of truth. The conservative cares supremely for the 
preservation of doctrinal soundness; the liberal cares su- 
premely for spiritual reality. It is an indispensable con- 
dition of a truly strong church to make room for both 
these elements, and our creed gives ample room for both. 

Yet this is not, by any means, the whole story. We 
not only find in our Confession these two clearly defined 
theological points of view; but no doubt is left us as to 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 401 


which of them the Confession itself counts most essen- 
tial. The creed itself declares that no creed must be 
made authoritative, that always the Bible must be the 
rule of faith and practice, and that the creed is accepted 
only in so far as it is true to our best understanding of 
the Bible. “The supreme judge must always be the Holy 
Spirit, speaking in the Scriptures.” 

When the Presbyterian church in America formally 
adopted the Westminster Confession as its creed it drew 
up certain preliminary principles. It is well to keep in 
mind some of these; they are splendidly broad and 
strong: “That God alone is Lord of the conscience, and, 
therefore, the rights of private judgment in all matters 
that respect religion are universal and unalienable ;” 
that truth is in order to goodness, and the great touch- 
stone of truth its tendency to promote holiness, accord- 
ing to our Saviour's rule, ‘By their fruits ye shall know 
them’ ;” “that while it is necessary to make effectual pro- 
vision that all who are admitted to be teachers should 
be sound in the faith, we also believe that there are truths 
and forms with respect to which men of good characters 
and principles may differ, and in all these they think it 
the duty, both of private Christians and societies, to 
exercise mutual forbearance toward each other;”’ “that 
all church power is only ministerial and declarative, that 
is to say, that the Holy Scriptures are that only rule of 
faith and manners, and that all decisions of the church 
should be founded upon the revealed will of God.” 

How can anyone question the fundamental position 
and policy of a church which makes such a preamble to 
its creed? That prince of early Presbyterians, Jonathan 
Dickinson, put the matter in a sentence when he said, 
“TJ have no worse opinion of the Assemblies Confession 
for the second article in the twentieth chapter, ‘God 
alone is Lord of the conscience, etc.,’ and I must tell 
you that to subscribe this article and impose the rest 
appears to me the most glorious contradition.” 

When the American Presbyterian church was first 


402 SELECTED ARTICLES 


organized as a united body in 1729 on the basis of this 
Confession of Faith a statement was unanimously 
adopted which shows the spirit which ought to rule 
throughout the Presbyterian church always, and which 
does rule where men are loyal to the Presbyterian sys- 
tem. “And the Synod do solemnly agree that no one of 
us will traduce or use any opprobrious terms of those 
that differ with us in extra-essential and unnecessary 
points of doctrine, but treat them with the same friend- 
ship, kindness and brotherly love as if they did not dif- 
fer with us in such sentiments.” 

If we of today, who love our Presbyterian heritage, 
want to be honestly and fully loyal to its best traditions 
and to its accepted principles, we must feel ourselves di- 
vinely called to maintain our denomination as a compre- 
hensive body. We must always be ready to extend full 
rights to those men and groups that feel constrained to 
emphasize the narrower and stricter, more legal side of 
our Presbyterian creed; but we must demand exactly 
the same rights for the broader, modern, progressive ele- 
ments in our church. It is a magnificent privilege to be- 
fong to an organization which squarely says, as a part of 
its creed, that we are bound to extend our Christian fel- 
lowship to all those who, in any place, call upon the name 
of the Lord Jesus. There is true catholicity in practice. 

It happened that in 1784 a Scotch Presbyterian of 
the strictest sort described in a letter the Presbyterians 
of America, as he had come to see them. He writes, 
“They are composed of ministers and people from dif- 
ferent countries; hence it is not surprising that they are 
not of one heart and one mind in the faith. However, 
it appears to be a received principle among them that 
whatever is disputed among the pious and learned ought 
not to be a term of communion in the Christian church, 
and hence they live generally in peace with one another, 
notwithstanding their jarring sentiments; and ministers 
of the Episcopal, Independent and Baptist communions 
who have a glaring appearance of piety are admitted into 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 403 


their pulpits.” The good man wrote that in a spirit of 
severe criticism. He was lamenting and ridiculing what 
he thought of as the laxness of the American Presby- 
terian church; but what he wrote is high praise. It was 
true then, it is true now, it always will be true of loyal 
Presbyterians, that they get on well together, regardless 
of their varying views, because they believe that the 
church fellowship ought to be wide enough to admit all 
who love the Lord Jesus Christ; and that they admit into 
their pulpits freely and gladly men of other communions, 
realizing that above all denominations is the church of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Does not the world in which we stand today need a 
church that can be at once firm, strong, positive, and yet 
generous and catholic? By inheritance and by funda- 
mental principle, we have such a church. It is our high 
privilege to keep it such, and to give it the best loyalty 
of our hearts. 

When the little band of Pilgrims were about to sail 
from Holland in 1620 their good and gifted leader, John 
Robinson, spoke words of wisdom to them, in which the 
very spirit of our Confession of Faith takes form: 


We are now ere long to part asunder, and the Lord knoweth 
whether I shall live to see your faces again. But whether the 
Lord hath appointed it or not, I charge you before God and 
His blessed angels to follow me no further than I have fol- 
lowed Christ; and if God should reveal anything to you by any 
other instrument of His, to be as ready to receive it as ever 
you were to receive any truth by my ministry; for I am very 
confident the Lord hath more-truth and light yet to break forth 
out of His holy Word. I bewail the condition of the reformed 
churches who are come to a period in religion, and will go no 
further than the instruments of their reformation. The Luth- 
erans cannot be drawn to go beyond what Luther saw; for what- 
ever part of God’s will has been imparted and revealed to Cal- 
vin they will rather die than embrace it. And the Calvinists, 
as you see, stick where Calvin left them. This is a misery much 
to be lamented; for though Luther and Calvin were precious 
shining lights in their times, yet God did not reveal His whole 
will to them; and were they living now they would be as ready 
and willing to embrace further light as that which they had re- 
ceived. I beseech you to remember your church covenant, at 
least that part of it whereby you promise and covenant with 


404 SELECTED ARTICLES 


God and with one another, to receive whatsoever light or truth 
shall be made known to you from the written Word of God. 

We may well set beside these noble words a statement 
made by the very assembly which formed the Westmin- 
ster Confession, “It is presupposed that the minister of 
Christ:is:in some measure gifted for so weighty a service 
by his: knowledge in the whole body of theology, but 
most of all’in the Holy Scriptures, and by the illumina- 
tion of the spirit of God and other gifts of edification 
which (together with reading and study of the Word) 
he ought still to seek-by prayer and a humble heart— 
resolving to admit and receive any truth not yet attained, 
whenever God shall make it known unto him.” 

That is the spirit of our church. It leads forward, 
not back. It is open to all truth; it eagerly welcomes all 
the light the spirit of God can give. Can we ask a better 
gift than that of loyalty to the true faith and the real 
spirit of our fathers, who would have our church follow 
them only as they followed Christ? 


AN AFFIRMATION DESIGNED TO SAFEGUARD 
THE, ONTEY AND:LIBERT YOR) Tiara 
BYTERTAN: CHURGHsI Ne TE: UN iat 
STAVES YORAM TE RAGA 


SUBMITTED FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF ITs MINISTERS 
AND PEOPLE? 


We the undersigned, ministers of the Presbyterian 
church in the United States of America, feel bound, in 
view of certain actions of the General Assembly of 1923 
and of persistent attempts to divide the church and 
abridge its freedom, to express our conviction in mat- 
ters pertaining thereto. At the outset we affirm and de- 
clare our acceptance of the Westminster Confession of 
Faith, as we did at our ordinations, “as containing the 
system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.” We 


_ 7? From Christian Work. 116: 84-5, 95. January 19, 1924. The list of 
signers, here omitted is given in Christian Work. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 405 


sincerely hold and earnestly preach the doctrines of 
evangelical Christianity, in agreement with the historic 
testimony of the Presbyterian church in the United States 
of America, of which we are loyal ministers. For the 
maintenance of the faith of our church, the preservation 
of its unity and the protection of the liberties of its 
ministers and people, we offer this affirmation. 

THE CHURCH’S GUARANTEES OF LIBERTY (1) CONCERNING THE 

INTERPRETATION OF THE CONFESSION OF FAITH 

I. By its law and its history, the Presbyterian church 
in the United States of America safeguards the liberty 
of thought and teaching of its ministers. At their ordi- 
nations they “receive and adopt the Confession of Faith 
of this church, as containing the system of doctrine 
taught in the Holy Scriptures.” This the church has 
always esteemed a sufficient doctrinal subscription for its 
ministers. Manifestly, it does not require their assent 
to the very words of the Confession, or to all of its teach- 
ings, or to interpretations of the Confession by indi- 
viduals or church courts. The Confession of Faith itself 
disclaims infallibility. Its authors would not allow this 
to church councils, their own included: 

All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether 
general or particular, may err, and many have erred; there- 
fore, they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but 
to be used as a help in both (Conf XXXI, iii). 

The Confession also expressly asserts the liberty of 
Christian believers and condemns the submission of the 
mind or conscience to any human authority: 

God alone is lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from 
the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything 
contrary to His Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or wor- 
ship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such com- 
mandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of con- 
science; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute 
and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and 
reason also (Conf. XX, ii). 

The formal relation of American Presbyterianism to 
the Westminster Confession of Faith begins in the 
Adopting Act of 1729. This anticipated and provided 


406 SELECTED, ARTICLES 


for dissent by individuals from portions of the confes- 
sion. At the formation of the Presbyterian Church in 
the United States of America, in 1788, the Westminster 
Confession was adopted as the creed of the church; and 
at the same time the church publicly declared the sig- 
nificance of its organization in a document which con- 
tains these words: ‘“‘There are truths and forms, with re- 
spect to which men of good characters and principles 
may differ. And in all these they think it the duty, both 
of private Christians and societies, to exercise mutual 
forbearance toward each other” (Declaration of Prin- 
ciples, v). 

Of the two parts into which our church was sepa- 
rated from 1837 to 1870, one held that only one inter- 
pretation of certain parts of the Confession of Faith was 
legitimate, while the other maintained its right to dissent 
from this interpretation. In the Reunion of 1870 they 
came together on equal terms, “each recognizing the 
other as a sound and orthodox body.” The meaning of 
this, as understood then and ever since, is that office- 
bearers in the church who maintain their liberty in the 
interpretation of the confession are exercising their rights 
guaranteed by the terms of the reunion. 

A more recent reunion also is significant, that of the 
Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States of America, in 1906. This 
reunion was opposed by certain members of the Pres- 
byterian Church in the United States of America, on the 
ground that the two churches were not at one in doc- 
trine; yet it was consummated. Thus did our church 
once more exemplify its historic policy of accepting theo- 
logical differences within its bounds and subordinating 
them to recognized loyalty to Jesus Christ and united 
work for the Kingdom of God. 


(2) CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES 


With respect to the interpretation of the Scriptures 
the position of our church has been that common to 
Protestants. “The Supreme Judge,” says the Confession 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 407 


of Faith, “by whom all controversies of religion are to 
be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of 
ancient writers, doctrines of men and private spirits are 
to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, 
can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the 
Scripture’ (Conf. I, x). Accordingly, our church has 
held that the supreme guide in the interpretation of the 
Scriptures is not, as it is with Roman Catholics, eccle- 
siastical authority, but the Spirit of God, speaking to the 
Christian believer. Thus, our church lays it upon its 
ministers and others to read and teach the Scriptures 
as the Spirit of God through His manifold ministries 
instructs them, and to receive all truth which from time 
to time He causes to break forth from the Scriptures. 
There is no assertion in the Scriptures that their 
writers were kept “from error.” The Confession of 
Faith does not make this assertion, and it is significant 
that this assertion is not to be found in the Apostles’ 
Creed or the Nicene Creed or in any of the great Re- 
formation confessions. The doctrine of inerrancy, in- 
tended to enhance the authority of the Scriptures, in fact 
impairs their supreme authority for faith and life and 
weakens the testimony of the church to the power of 
God unto salvation through Jesus Christ. We hold that 
the General Assembly of 1923, in asserting that “‘the 
Holy Spirit did so inspire, guide and move the writers 
of Holy Scripture as to keep them from error,” spoke 
without warrant of the Scriptures or of the Confession 
of Faith. We hold rather to the words of the Confes- 
sion of Faith, that the Scriptures “are given by inspira- 
tion of God, to be the rule of faith and life” (Conf. I, ii). 


AUTHORITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE DECLARATION OF 
DocTRINE 

II. While it is constitutional for any General As- 

sembly “to bear testimony against error in doctrine” 

(Form of Govt. XII, v), yet such testimony is without 

binding authority, since the constitution of our church 

provides that its doctrine shall be declared only by con- 


408 SELECTED ARTICLES 


current action of the General Assembly and the pres- 
byteries. Thus the church guards the statement of its 
doctrine against hasty or ill-considered action by either 
General Assemblies or presbyteries. From this provision 
of our constitution it is evident that neither in one Gen- 
eral Assembly nor in many, without concurrent action 
of the presbyteries, is there authority to declare what the 
Presbyterian Church in the United States of America be- 
lieves and teaches; and that the assumption that any 
General Assembly has authoritatively declared what the 
church believes and teaches is groundless. A declaration 
by a General Assembly that any doctrine is “an essen- 
tial doctrine’ attempts to amend the constitution of the 
church in an unconstitutional manner. 


ACTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGARDING THE PREACHING 
IN THE First PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEw York ClItTy 


III. The General Assembly of 1923, in asserting that 
“doctrines contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian 
church” have been preached in the pulpit of the First 
Presbyterian Church of New York city, virtually pro- 
nounced a judgment against this church. The General 
Assembly did this with knowledge that the matter on 
which it so expressed itself was already under formal 
consideration in the Presbytery of New York, as is shown 
by the language of its action. The General Assembly 
acted in the case without giving hearing to the parties 
concerned. Thus the General Assembly did not con- 
form to the procedure in such cases contemplated by our 
Book of Discipline, and, what is more serious, it in effect 
condemned a Christian minister without using the method 
of conference, patience and love enjoined on us by Jesus 
Christ. We object to the action of the General Assembly 
in this case as being out of keeping with the law and 
the spirit of our church. 


THE DocTRINAL DELIVERANCE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 


IV. The General Assembly of 1923 expressed the 
opinion concerning five doctrinal statements that each 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 409 


one “is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and 
our standards.” On the constitutional grounds which 
we have before described, we are opposed to any at- 
tempt to elevate these five doctrinal statements, or any 
of them, to the position of tests for ordination or for 
good standing in our church. 

Furthermore, this opinion of the General Assembly 
attempts to commit our church to certain theories con- 
cerning the inspiration of the Bible, and the incarnation, 
the atonement, the resurrection, and the continuing life 
and supernatural power of our Lord Jesus Christ. We 
all hold most earnestly to these great facts and doctrines; 
we all believe from our hearts that the writers of the 
Bible were inspired of God; that Jesus Christ was God 
manifest in the flesh; that God was in Christ, reconciling 
the world unto Himself, and through Him we have our 
redemption; that, having died for our sins, He rose from 
the dead and is our ever-living Saviour; that in His 
earthly ministry He wrought many mighty works, and 
by His vicarious death and unfailing presence He is able 
to save to the uttermost. Some of us regard the par- 
ticular theories contained in the deliverance of the Gen- 
eral Assembly of 1923 as satisfactory explanations of 
these facts and doctrines. But we are united in believ- 
ing that these are not the only theories allowed by the 
Scriptures and our standards as explanations of these 
facts and doctrines of our religion, and that all who hold 
to these facts and doctrines, whatever theories they may 
employ to explain them, are worthy of all confidence 
and fellowship. 


EXTENT OF THE LIBERTY CLAIMED 


V. We do not desire liberty to go beyond the teach- 
ings of evangelical Christianity. But we maintain that 
it is our constitutional right and our Christian duty with- 
in these limits to exercise liberty of thought and teach- 
ing, that we may more effectively preach the Gospel of 
Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world. 


4to SELECTED ARTICLES 


THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THIS AFFIRMATION 


VI. Finally, we deplore the evidences of division in 
our beloved church, in the face of a world so desperately 
in need of a united testimony to the Gospel of Christ. 
We earnestly desire fellowship with all who like us are 
disciples of Jesus Christ. We hope that those to whom 
this affirmation comes will believe that it is not the 
declaration of a theological party, but rather a sincere 
appeal, based on the Scriptures and our standards for 
the preservation of the unity and freedom of our church, 
for which most earnestly we plead and pray. 


INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY? OR THE EOUre 
RIGHTS OF FUNDAMENTALIST AND MOD- 
ERNIST IN A COMPREHENSIVE 
CTT UNS Ee 


“Moreover, tt 1s required in stewards that a man be found 
faithful.’— I Corinthians 4:2. 


.. . I did not wish to call your attention to such a 
question as this, especially as we draw near to the 
Christmas season, but I am required by the Canons of 
the church to see that the Pastoral Letter is read to 
the congregation, and inasmuch as that Pastoral Letter 
does more than suggest that there are clergy preaching 
from our pulpits and ministering at our altars who are 
guilty of dishonesty, I feel it my duty to enter an em- 
phatic protest... . 

I. Js this a “Pastoral Letter?” [Dr. Parks questions 
the validity of the bishops’ communication as a ‘“‘Pastoral 
etter, 

Il. Lhe modernism of the bishops. This letter is one 
of the effects produced by the tidal wave of modernism 
sweeping through all the church; and the attempt of 


1 By Rev. Leighton Parks, D.D., St. Bartholomew’s Church, New 
York. Preached on the Sunday when the Bishops’ Pastoral Letter was 
read. Christian Work. 115: 781-5. December 29, 1923. Also in Church- 
man. 129 No. 1: 10-17. January 5, 1924. Also printed as a pamphlet. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM Ait 


those who call themselves Fundamentalists to check the 
rising tide of knowledge, and as I believe, of spiritual 
life in the churches, has manifested itself in ways that 
must distress refined and intelligent people. In the Bap- 
tist church the Fundamentalists have manifested a spirit 
of vulgarity which is shocking. I do not think Dr. Grant 
has overstated the case in his comments upon the con- 
troversy in that church. In the Presbyterian church a 
spirit of obscurantism, identifying religion with exploded 
theories of the origin of the universe and of man, has 
made the late meeting of the General Assembly of that 
venerable church ridiculous. 

Our bishops have not been guilty either of vulgarity 
or obscurantism. Indeed, they show evidence of the 
spirit of modernism. The statement that “the Christian 
faith may be distinguished from the forms in which it 
is expressed as something deeper and higher and more 
personal” could not have been found in any letter put 
forth by the House of Bishops forty or even twenty 
years ago. Also, that they should call in the “best 
scholars” to bear witness is deeply significant. But per- 
haps the most significant illustration of the spirit of mod- 
ernism is found in the fact that they have abandoned 
the old orthodox position which insisted that the divinity 
of Christ was dependent upon the miracles, and recog- 
nize the miracles to be the natural effects produced by 
a divine personality. 

They also show the spirit of modernism by recog- 
nizing that human words are inadequate to express di- 
vine realities. When, however, they deny the liberty 
which they enjoy in the interpretation oi ten of the 
articles of the creed, to the interpretation of the two 
articles which refer to the incarnation and the resur- 
rection, it will seem to some that they are inconsistent 
in logic and show signs of what may be called “arrested 
development” in their modernism. Certainly, those who 
have entered into the larger liberty which has come as 
the result of years of struggle have no desire to point 


4i2 SELECTED ARTICLES 


the finger of scorn at those who have not gone the whole 
way on the journey. They should recognize that this 
“arrested development” of the bishops probably means 
no more than that they are resting. They have been 
wearied by the journey, and however much it is to be 
regretted that their weariness should manifest itself in 
denunciation of those who have gone further along on 
the road to freedom, the “progressives” should rejoice 
as they note how great has been the advance of the whole 
army of the faithful. 

As we look back over the history of the church in the 
past sixty years we see what advance has been made. 
When Dr. Temple publicly asserted that the Holy Scrip- 
tures showed a gradual development in knowledge, in 
morality, in the conception of the character of God, he 
was denounced and would have been put out of the Eng- 
lish church had he not been protected by the laity. Yet 
that man lived to become the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
honored in all the churches; and that which was deemed 
his heresy is now a commonplace. When Bishop Colenso 
questioned the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and 
called attention to the fact that the numbers used in that 
ancient document were grossly exaggerated, he was de- 
posed by the Synod of the South African church, but 
on appeal was justified by the Church of England. Some 
of us can remember when his name was coupled with that 
of Arius, almost with that of Judas. Yet his “heresy” 
is now admitted probably by all the bishops. Frederick 
Denison Maurice, one of the greatest prophets and 
philosophers and saints of the English church, was in- 
hibited from preaching for a long period because he 
denied that the word “aeonian” was equivalent to “ever- 
lasting.” When Dr. William R. Huntington and the late 
Dr. McKim accepted that teaching and refused to de- 
clare that they believed in the everlasting torture of the 
lost, the one was refused ordination for a long time and 
the other was denied the honor of the Episcopate. Yet 
how many of the bishops feel themselves called upon 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 413 


to preach the old doctrine of “hell fire?” Bishop Clark, 
ultimately the Presiding Bishop of this church, told me 
that his ordination to the diaconate was held up for 
months because he could not get the bishop to agree 
that a man who was unabe to accept the orthodox teach- 
ing concerning the nature of the resurrection of the body 
would be a faithful minister of the church. Yet which 
of the bishops believes in the resurrection of the body 
as it had been believed from early times? Phillips 
Brooks was denounced as a heretic because he would 
not fall into the heresy of Apollinarius! Every one of 
the “heresies” of the past the bishops have found means 
of incorporating into their interpretations of the ortho- 
dox faith of the church, and therefore we rejoice. 

But now we come to the consideration of questions 
which are vital. The first is this: 

Ill. Are the bishops the sole defenders and definers 
of doctrine? [Dr. Parks says all the clergy are equally 
responsible for this. | 

IV. The authority of the creed. The next question 
to which I would call your attention is, What is the 
authority on which the Apostles’ Creed rests? The 
bishops in their letter tell us that it is to be interpreted 
by the Nicene Creed. Inasmuch as they appeal to the 
Nicene Creed, it might be remembered that the Apostles’ 
Creed in the form in which we now have it was not crys- 
tallized until centuries after the meeting of the Council 
of Nicaea in 325 A. D. The Apostles’ Creed is the ex- 
pression of a slow evolution which went on for centuries. 
Therefore, a creed set forth in 325 cannot be the inter- 
preter of a creed which was not finished until centuries 
later. 

1, But in my judgment they have been more unfor- 
tunate still when they come to deal with those two 
articles which they say can be interpreted only in one 
way. For when we turn to the Nicene Creed we find 
that the article which deals with the resurrection of our 
Lord says, “And the third day He rose again, according 


414 SELECTED ARTICLES 


to the Scriptures.’ I am well aware that many scholars 
interpret this to mean that He rose from the dead as 
had been prophesied in the Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
ment, but I know no reason why it should not be inter- 
preted as meaning that He rose from the dead as the New 
Testament declares. But leaving that question aside, in 
regard to which I do not pretend to speak with author- 
ity, let me remind you that the Nicene Creed itself refers 
us back to the Scriptures, declines to deal with the case, 
saying, “This court has no jurisdiction to try that case. 
It must be tried in the court of the Scriptures.” 

2. When the appeal is made to the Nicene Creed 
to show that the virgin birth is a “historical fact’ the 
bishops have evidently. forgotten what they all must 
know, namely, that the Nicene Creed made no allusion 
to the virgin birth; nor did the Creed of Eusebius, which 
the council had before it. The council considered this 
creed carefully before putting forth its statement of 
what it believed to be the faith of the church; and as a 
result this is what they said about the incarnation: “Who 
for us men and for our salvation came down and was 
made man and dwelt as man amongst men.” 

If in a police court an attorney were to say, “I pro- 
pose to prove by the testimony of William Smith that 
such and such a thing took place,” and when he called 
William Smith, found that William Smith knew nothing 
about it, would he be at liberty then to say to the jury, 
“When I said William Smith I meant Henry Jones?” 
And when he calls Henry Jones and finds that Henry 
Jones lived far away from the occurrence to which he 
is called upon to bear witness, what would the jury think, 
what would the judge say, of such a presentation of a 
case as that? 

That is exactly what the bishops have done. I do 
not wish to press this point, because this is not a debat- 
ing society, and I do not wish to score a verbal or tech- 
nical victory. If I did, I think I could rest my case here. 
But something far deeper than any verbal or technical 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 415 


victory is concerned with this matter, my brethren. And, 
therefore, I will not press that point. Of course, the 
bishops would answer that when they said the “Nicene” 
Creed, they did not mean the creed put forth by the 
Council of Nicaea, but that they were using the term in 
the sense in which it is popularly understood; that is, 
that they meant the creed which we have just repeated 
in this morning’s service. They are aware that that 
creed was not put forth by the Council of Nicaea; that 
it was recited at the Council of Constantinople more than 
fifty years later, and that in the meantime, as the “best 
scholars” tell us, some copyist, who knowing that it was 
the opinion of the whole church at that time that our 
Saviour was born of a virgin, put that in on his own 
authority. The Council of Constantinople never consid- 
ered the question. They were engaged on an entirely dif- 
ferent problem, namely, the question of the priority of 
the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople, 
and they simply took the creed which was handed them 
by the copyist and recited it as satisfactory to them with- 
out any discussion. It was not until the Council of Chal- 
cedon, more than one hundred and twenty-five years 
after the Council of Nicaea, that the creed which we have 
just repeated was set forth with the authority of a 
council. 

Is there any lawyer here who, if he wished to illus- 
trate the teaching of the framers of the Constitution 
of the United States, would say that the fifteenth, six- 
teenth and eighteenth amendments to the Constitution, 
passed over a hundred years after the formal establish- 
ment of it, represented the minds of the fathers of the 
country? We have no more right to quote the Creed of 
Chalcedon as representing the minds of the fathers of 
Nicaea than we have to quote the eighteenth amendment 
as representing the minds of Hamilton and Madison and 
Jefferson. Nicaea, like the imaginary “William Smith,” 
bears no testimony, and Chalcedon, like “Henry Jones,” 
was far from the scene! But even though what 1s popu- 


416 +» SELECTED: sARTICLES 


larly called the “Nicene’’ Creed was set forth with the 
authority of a General Council, that does not make it 
the final court of appeal nor an infallible interpreter, be- 
cause the standards of the English church from which 
our church derives; the same standards that our church 
deliberately set up, say distinctly that “General Councils 
... (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof 
all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God), 
may err and sometimes have erred.” In other words, 
the English church not only absolutely refused to allow 
the bishops to be the sole definers of doctrine, but also 
to have the authority of the creed referred back to any 
General Council. 

Then to what did they refer it? They referred it to 
the Holy Scriptures. ... We turn away from the Catho- 
lic tradition. We turn away from the General Councils, 
and we take these two doctrines back to the Scriptures. 
What do we find? 

1. We find, first of all, in regard to the resurrection 
of our Lord that the record is exceedingly confusing. 
Sometimes it would seem as if we were in the presence 
of a natural body which had been reanimated, and at 
other times it seems as if we saw a ghost. Now, then, 
to assert that no man is justified in reciting the article 
concerning the resurrection of our Lord unless he is pre- 
pared to say that it is a “bodily” resurrection is believed 
by many earnest ministers in this church to be a “strange” 
doctrine. They turn to St. Paul’s account of the vision 
of our Lord which converted him and they see no sign 
of any physical body. They study St. Paul’s epistles and 
learn from them that in his judgment all of us shall rise 
as Christ rose. As long as the Christian church believed 
that the same body which was laid in the grave arose 
at the Last Day, it was inevitable that the church should 
believe that Christ arose in the same way. But now 
that no intelligent man believes that the dead bodies rise 
from the grave, why should we insist that the essential 
thing in the resurrection of our Lord is “bodily?” Does 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 417 


not this expression in the Pastoral teach the fundamental 
philosophic heresy which declares the physical to be more 
real than the spiritual? I believe that to be an “erron- 
eous” doctrine. May the Fundamentalist unchurch the 
Modernist who believes in the spiritual resurrection of 
our Lord? No more than the Modernist may unchurch 
the Fundamentalist who believes in the “bodily” resur- 
rection of our Lord. Both can find justification for their 
interpretation in the Holy Scriptures. 

This point is of great importance. In ten of the arti- 
cles of the creed the Fundamentalists, or many of them, 
have spiritualized the doctrines. What right have they 
so to do? There is not one of the bishops who believes 
the article concerning our Lord’s ascension as it has been 
believed from early days. Ina Ptolemaic universe it was 
inevitable that the ascension should be conceived as a 
physical fact. There seemed no incongruity m suppos- 
ing that the physical body of our Lord was lifted from 
the Mount of Olives to the throne of God at some point 
in space above the visible firmament. But every bishop 
today has abandoned that notion. They are living in an- 
other universe. They know that if our Lord’s body had 
begun to ascend into space forty days after His resur- 
rection it would not today have reached the farthest star 
revealed by the telescope. Yet Stephen saw Him stand- 
ing at the right hand of God soon after His ascension. 
What justification have the bishops for changing the in- 
terpretation which has come down to them through the 
Catholic tradition? If they base it upon the knowledge 
that has come through astronomy, they are rationalists. 
The knowledge may lead them to doubt the traditional 
interpretation, but it does not justify them in remaining 
ministers of a church which has inherited the tradition, 
unless they are able to show by the Holy Scriptures that 
another interpretation is justified. The position of the 
Modernist is exactly the same, only he is applying the 
same method to the two articles to which the bishops 
declare that it may not be applied. It will not do to un- 


418 SELECTED .ARTICLES 


church the Modernist on the ground that he is a rational- 
ist and the Fundamentalist is not, if the Modernist ap- 
peals to the Scriptures and is convinced that they justify 
him in a more spiritual interpretation of the articles con- 
cerning the incarnation and the resurrection than the 
Catholic tradition approves. 

Z. And so we come to a far more living question, 
because it touches emotion and because it is of a nature 
that we do not care to discuss before a general congre- 
gation, and that is whether or not our Lord was born 
of a virgin or of a married woman. Of course, those 
who say that he was born of a virgin are justified by 
the Scriptures, though as far as I know there are only 
three passages which do justify that belief, but they are 
enough. Now, the vital question is, Can the Modernist 
find justification in the Scriptures themselves for his in- 
terpretation of the article in the creed which treats of 
the incarnation? I believe he can. In the first place, 
he reads the very passages on which the Fundamentalist 
bases his interpretation and he questions 1f they can bear 
the weight. There is a passage in the prophecy of Isaiah, 
“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall 
call his name Immanuel.” But the “best scholars” tell 
us that the Hebrew word almah translated parthenos in 
the Greek version and “virgin” in the English really 
means a young married woman. They ask why, if Isaiah 
meant ‘“‘virgin” he did not use the Hebrew word bethulah 
instead of almah. Moreover, they learn from _ the 
prophecy of Isaiah that the child who was to be born 
and called Immanuel was born in the very year in which 
the prophet spoke; that possibly the “young woman” 
was the wife of the prophet. The Modernist recognizes 
that it was natural that the early Christians who turned 
back to the only Bible they had, the Old Testament, 
should find in such a prophecy a beautiful suggestion of 
the birth of our Saviour. But they do not feel that it is 
conclusive. And when we come to the Gospels of St. 
Matthew and St. Luke we see that it is stated that our 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 419 


Saviour was born of a virgin, and all who feel that that 
is a part of the Christian faith are justified by the Scrip- 
tures in so asserting their belief. 

But if that were all, then there are many in the 
church, both laity and clergy, who would be bound as 
honest men to withdraw. But it is not all. Another 
man turns to the Scriptures and he is told by the “best 
scholars,” not the radical minds but conservative scholars, 
that those two chapters, one in St. Matthew and one in 
St. Luke, belong to the introductions of those Gospels 
which were added after the original authors, whom we 
call Matthew and Luke, had finished their work; in other 
words, that that record represents a theory in regard to 
our Saviour’s birth which came into the church after 
those Gospels were written. 

But this is not the whole of the story. Men turn to 
the Epistles of St. Paul, written long before any of 
the Gospels, and they find St. Paul saying, “Jesus Christ 

. was made of the seed of David according to the 
flesh.” Then they turn to the genealogical table in the 
Gospel of Matthew and find that the descendant of David 
is Joseph and that there is no mention of Mary as de- 
scended from David. If I wished to bring a railing ac- 
cusation, I should say that the attempts which have been 
made to prove that this really refers to Mary are un- 
worthy of scholarly men. But I do not say this. I do 
not even say that it is disingenuous. I only say that it 1s 
ingenious and that it would never have been attempted 
had it not been necessary to make the facts accord with 
a theory, instead of deducing a theory from the facts. 
And when we turn to the Gospel of Luke we read that 
“Jesus was supposed.to be the son of Joseph, ... who 
was the son of Adam, the son of God.” They turn to 
the Epistle to the Galatians and find Paul saying, “Jesus 
Christ was made of a woman.” Does that mean born 
of a virgin? Most scholars agree that it was a familiar 
Hebrew saying which simply meant to express the birth 
of every man. Job says, “Man that is born of woman is 


420 SELECTED ARTICLES 


of few days, and full of trouble.” Does that mean that 
the “changes and chances of this mortal life’ come only 
upon those who are virgin born? Our Lord Himself 
says, speaking of John the Baptist, “Among them that 
are born of women there hath not risen a greater than 
John the Baptist.’ Does that mean that John was born 
of a virgin? We turn to the Gospel of Mark, which 
Catholic tradition says was dictated by the Apostle Peter, 
and there is not one word about the virgin birth in it. 
We turn to the fourth Gospel, which paints the portrait 
of the glorifed Christ, and we find the author saying 
that when our patron saint, Bartholomew, was urged by 
Philip to come to Jesus, he tells him that he is to meet 
the son of Joseph, though the same author has just de- 
clared that John the Baptist said that Jesus was the Son 
of God. In other words, many Modernists believe that 
they are justified by the Scriptures in denying that the 
virgin birth is a “historical fact.” 

How, then, it is asked, can they repeat the words of 
the creed? They turn once more to John and they hear 
these words: “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the 
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” 
But that does not refer to the Word of which John has 
just been speaking; it refers to every soul that has re- 
ceived Him. Our natural birth is not the expression of 
our real life. It is the birth from above which is “not 
of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the will of the 
flesh, but of God.’ Now, then, there are men and 
women and ministers of the church who say the historic 
words of the creed, and while they cannot affirm that the 
virgin birth is a “historical fact,” do believe that they 
are justified by the Scripture in using the old language 
to express their belief that in a way that is true of none 
of us, He was born “not of blood, nor of the will of the 
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” And be- 
cause they believe Him to be the incarnate Word of 
God; God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, 
Very God from Very God; because they look to Him for 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 421 


health and salvation; because they believe that “there is 
none other name under heaven given among men where- 
by we must be saved;” and because they believe that 
that faith in their Saviour may be expressed in the his- 
toric words which to them mean His pure innocence, His 
uniqueness, and His essential divinity, though to the men 
of old the words expressed a historic fact, are they to 
be called dishonest men? They have their warrant in 
the Scriptures. 

V. Intellectual integrity. Now it may be asked, 
“Who has been called a dishonest man?” I think that 
is the most serious blot on this document. The very 
fact that nobody is named cannot fail to sow the seed 
of suspicion in the minds of many congregations that the 
bishops may refer to their minister. There is a wide- 
spread belief, whether it be justified or not, that this 
letter of the bishops is directed against the Bishop of 
Massachusetts ; that his book called “Fifty Years,’ which 
I again advise every one of you to read, is one of those 
“recent utterances” which have disturbed the minds of 
certain “eminent laymen.” Very well. If in a meeting 
of the Board of Aldermen the Mayor were to come in 
and say, “There are grafters at this table,’ instantly he 
would be called on to name them. In no company of 
honorable men may anonymous accusations be thrown 
broadcast without insistence that the name of the man 
referred to shall be heard. Why do not the bishops name 
Bishop Lawrence? Because if they did, it would be nec- 
essary to bring him to trial. And why is he not brought 
to trial? Because it would shake this church to its foun- 
dations. There is not a poor clergyman in this church 
who does not daily thank God for what that man has 
done to relieve their poverty. There is not a layman 
who has ever been brought into contact with him who 
not only has been profoundly impressed by the simplicity 
of his character, by the sanity of his judgment, by his 
grasp of business principles, but who also has not been 
convinced that “his righteousness is as clear as the light 


422 SELECTED ARTICLES 


and his just dealing as the noon day.” They cannot 
bring him to trial. 

T will ask why they do not bring me to trial. J] am 
not a distinguished person. I do not for one moment 
put myself on a level with the Bishop of Massachusetts, 
but for many years I have been teaching two things 
which the Pastoral declares to be unsound and suggests 
that the minister who so teaches is a dishonest man. I 
have never said privately anything I have not said pub- 
licly; I have said nothing in this church that I have not 
published in a book*which any one who cares to may 
read; and in all, I have said that while belief in the in- 
carnation is essential, and while unquestionably at the 
time the Apostles’ Creed was set forth, the only way of 
expressing the belief of the church in the incarnation 
was by the assertion that Jesus was born of a virgin, I 
have denied that belief in the incarnation necessitated the 
acceptance of the virgin birth as a “historical fact.” I 
have justified my younger brethren in continuing in the 
ministry though they could not accept the virgin bifth 
as a “historical fact” or the “bodily” resurrection of our 
Lord. I have urged men and women to come to the 
communion who could not so accept the creed. And I 
would call particular attention to the fact that if it is 
unlawful or dishonest for a minister of our church to 
teach as I have taught, it is also unlawful and dishonest 
for those who have accepted my teaching to come to the 
communion. There cannot be one law for the clergy 
and another for the laity. So that this letter, which 
at first might have seemed to be the condemnation of a 
few ministers, will be found to be the condemnation of 
a very large number of the thoughtful laity as well. 

I think, if I may be allowed to say so without of- 
fense, that the bishops are confused. I know of no man 
who pretends that the expression in the Apostles’ Creed 
“born of the Virgin Mary,” was used in any except a 
most literal sense by the early church, any more than he 
denies that the words “the resurrection of the body,” 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 423 


had anything but a physical significance to the men of 
old; and while it would be dishonest, or at least show 
ignorance for any man so to assert, he cannot be called 
dishonest if, admitting that the fact of the incarnation 
could only have been expressed in the Apostles’ Creed 
in the words with which we are familiar, continues to use 
them with a spiritual significance which no physical fact 
can adequately reveal. And if it be thought that this 
is dishonest, why am I not brought to trial? 

I can imagine that if that were suggested to my 
bishop—and I have no doubt it has been suggested to 
him—he might say in a most kindly spirit, “He is the last 
man in this Diocese whom I should desire to bring to 
trial; first, because he used every legitimate effort to pre- 
vent my election to the Episcopate. He is reported to 
have said that ‘he would vote for any respectable clergy- 
man rather than for me.’ If then I bring him to trial, 
shall I not lay myself open to the suspicion that I am 
actuated by unworthy motives?” No one who knows 
him would think that of him, I least of all. He might 
go on to say more than that: “Since my election he has 
endeavored to show himself a loyal friend, and I look 
on him as my friend and I should be very loath to bring 
such trouble upon him.” But if it were urged that it 
was his duty, as I believe it is his duty if he believes 
me to be dishonest or heretical, he might say, “Well, 
possibly, and if he were a younger man, it might be de- 
sirable, but he is an old man. The time left for him 
to do harm to the church is very short. I would not 
bring down his gray hairs to the grave in disgrace. Wait 
and after a little while some one will come and take his 
place, and all will be forgotten that he has said.” I ven- 
ture to suggest that if this were the thought of the bishop 
he would be mistaken in regard to two facts. I am an 
old man and the time of my departure is at hand, but I 
should not consider it a disgrace to be deposed from the 
ministry of this church for anything I have said either 
privately or publicly; I should consider it an honor to 


424 SELECTED ARTICLES 


be led off from the stage where I have tried to serve my 
Lord for half a century, escorted by a committee of dig- 
nified clergy and the bishop himself! And another mis- 
take would be to forget that while the sere and yellow 
leaf falls to the ground, it is not alone because the sap 
no longer flows through it nor because the inevitable 
action of the law of gravitation drags it from the twig. 
It is because each leaf is pushed off by the bud that 
has been forming to take its place. So when they have 
gotten rid of me, they will find that there is another just 
as bad—perhaps five, perhaps twenty. Indeed, when I 
note how the spirit of modernism has penetrated the 
House of Bishops as shown in this letter, I believe that 
that spirit will animate the direction of the church in the 
years to come. 

If they do not bring Bishop Lawrence; if they do 
not bring me; if they do not bring Dr. Worcester of 
Emmanuel Church, Boston, whose name is illustrious in 
all the churches of this country and Europe as well, who 
has signed a public protest against this Pastoral; if they 
do not bring these men to trial, whom will they bring 
to trial? I would not say one word to misrepresent the 
bishops or to stir up feeling against them. I believe them 
good and earnest, even if mistaken men; but I will put a 
hypothetical case to you. Suppose any judge in this city 
were to feel that men of ‘the standing of Mr. Root or 
Mr. Wickersham or Judge Parker or Judge Seabury 
had been guilty of contempt of court by some public 
utterance and yet did nothing about it, but dragged some 
poor friendless, almost unknown attorney before the 
awful judgment seat and disbarred him, what would 
the righeous public opinion of this country say? Now, 
then, there is a poor, helpless but not altogether friend- 
less man in another diocese whom it is proposed to bring 
to trial for saying the same things that Lawrence and 
Worcester and I and many others have said for years. 
The bishop of that diocese said in regard to the man 
whom he proposes to try (I would not believe it when 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 425 


I first heard it; I thought it was either a slander or a 
gross exaggeration, but I have in my possession the 
sworn affidavit of an attorney in that diocese, witnessed 
to by a notary public that the bishop said in his presence) 
that unless a certain clergyman in the diocese retracted 
the statement that the virgin birth was not a “historical 
fact” he would be brought to trial, in which case he 
would stand “about as much chance of acquittal as a 
snowball in hell.” It only shows to what theological ex- 
citement will lead a good man. Is it possible that a fair 
trial can be obtained in a court constituted by a bishop 
who would say such a thing as that? 

Now, it may be that in this controversy and in every 
particular of it, the Fundamentalist may be right and the 
Modernist wrong, but in that case, the Modernist must 
be convinced by reason, by sound scholarship, and the 
Holy Scriptures, and not by any dogmatic fulmination 
issuing from Dallas, Texas. Attention has already been 
called to the fact that the bishops call in the “best schol- 
ars” to bear witness to their interpretation of the creed, 
but they do not tell us who those “best scholars” are nor 
what has been the result of their study. Possibly they 
do not know. 

VI. Effects. Now let us ask what is to be the result 
of this letter. 

1. I do not believe this man to whom I have alluded 
will be brought to trial. I doubt if anyone will be 
brought to trial. I think that already the protest that has 
come out from the church, not only from the laity, but 
from the clergy and from a number of bishops, will make 
it impossible to carry the threats in this Pastoral into 
effect. 

2. But the dreadful thing is that anybody should 
be threatened. I wonder that the Fathers of the Church 
who come into contact with the poor clergy should not 
have asked themselves whether or not a threat was not 
likely to be a temptation to intellectual dishonesty. They 
know that many of the clergy are dependent upon the 


426 SELECTED ARTICLES 


goodwill of their bishop, not only for preterment but 
even for the support of their families. If, then, in the 
fulfilment of their ordination vow they seek by the help 
of the best scholars to learn the truth about the Bible, 
haunted by the fear that the result may not be in accor- 
dance with the opinion of the bishops, how can they fail 
to be tempted to that insincerity which manifests itself 
in suppressio vert. 

3. What can be the effect of this suspicion upon 
the work of the church?... 

There is such need, with the nations of the world 
in perplexity; with anarchy undermining our social life 
following the Volstead Act; with men and women who 
ought to be the future teachers of the church driven from 
the altar and from the ministry because they cannot ac- 
cept the dogmatic statements in the way in which the 
Fundamentalists would interpret them. I would that the 
bishops had found some word of comfort to say to their 
brethren of the clergy who would gladly serve God in 
their day and generation, and not suggest that we were 
dishonest men. 

I venture to suggest that in years to come some his- 
torian of the church will turn over the yellowed leaves 
of this forgotten Pastoral and ask himself, “What was 
it all about?” It cannot be a comforting thought to the 
sixty-five bishops to reflect that his conclusion may be 
that this Pastoral was conceived in panic and brought 
forth in haste. 


CONSCIENCE AND THE BISHOPS "A HiS@ORt 
SLEEPS 


The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in an 
evening and a morning of last November created a new 
situation in that communion, not bringing order out of 
chaos, but something very like chaos out of what had 


1 By Dickinson S. Miller, then professor in the General Theological 
Seminary, New York. New Republic. 38: 35-9. March 5, 1924. 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 427 


been order. It was not fortunate that by an act so 
rapid and so slightly considered so profound an up- 
heaval should have been occasioned; but since it was so, 
it would not be expedient to rest the matter until the 
question at issue has for practical purposes been settled. 
The question is of the right of individual clergymen to 
interpret certain articles of the creed in a symbolic, not 
a literal sense. And it would be neither expedient nor 
honorable to rest the matter until it has been made clear 
to the public that the bishops’ implied charge of dis- 
honesty against some of their own number and many 
others is without basis. By that accusation (which had 
they paused to look into the state of opinion and into 
recent history and ecclesiastical rulings could hardly have 
been made) against some of the most respected men in 
the church, they secured a prompt and formidable revolt. 
As the matter stands at present, their act has in the short 
interval had results out of which has emerged a more 
incontestable basis for the liberties they condemned than 
has ever existed before. It is of capital importance that 
this result shall not be reversed. 

The church is a deep-seated organ of society, pow- 
erful for good. It is the institute of the inner life, 
which is by nature weaker than the outer life and yet 
has the ultimate control over it. So long as man has 
an inner life, requiring to be developed, steadied and 
guided, there will be need of the church. It demands 
the best mind and soul of the community to lead it. To- 
day there are crying tasks for moral influence and lead- 
ership (in no little part unnoted) which belong to its 
function and which it should perform. It is not for- 
ever limited to its present scope. Society should not en- 
courage it to bar out the more enlightened and alert 
young spirits. Yet society is prone to forget its own 
stake in the matter, look on indifferently and merely say: 
“Every man has a right to his opinion, but if he doesn’t 
believe what the church says he should go out of it.” 
This is sound sense and truth, but it does not carry the 


428 SELECTED ‘ARTICLES 


conclusion fancied. The question is, What does the 
church really say? That is, what does it mean, or per- 
mit us to mean, by the words it uses? While historic 
and venerable words are retained, full of true symbolic 
force and fitness and holding the church in spirit together 
through the ages, is it forbidden that the mind and 
meaning behind them should grow in depth and enlight- 
enment? That is what is being decided now and it is 
in the interest of society that it should be decided for 
the largest benefit. 

It is a point that has to be decided. In any oath, vow 
or test the question may be raised, What do these words 
mean? And there is only one authority that can answer, 
the authority that imposes the oath, vow or test. If the 
church permits certain words of the creed to be accepted 
in a figurative or symbolic sense it is not dishonest to 
say them in that sense. If it refuses to permit this it 
will be dishonest. For that will not be within the mean- 
img of the words as officially employed. 

Religion involves worship, and this is an action in 
which many of the intellectual class have no desire to 
engage. “Only by bowing down before the higher,” said 
- Carlyle, “does man feel himself exalted.” Those who 
do desire to engage in it know that the spirit of worship 
cannot express itself and give the measure of its depth 
without potent symbolism. When the worship is just, 
such symbolism is expressive of truth. Christianity is 
not the mere devotion to a principle but to a Person as 
embodying that principle. Christ, by His principle of 
love and benefit, which He declared to be the one basis 
of the whole moral law, and by the identification of His 
whole personality, acts, teaching, death and spirit with 
the principle, becomes an object of the Christian’s per- 
sonal worship as an embodiment of the divine. There 
is no truer or higher object of worship. The historic 
dogmas that have gathered about Him have this in com- 
mon, that their purpose is to exalt and magnify Jesus 
Christ. To say in the creed that He was “conceived 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 429 


by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,” that He 
was the Son of God and also of man, is, for many of us, 
to use a historic and poetic symbol to express the truth 
that while He had all the nature of the children of men 
He was divine in nature in that He was peculiarly one 
with the spirit of God. 

Long ago at a university I had unexpectedly to take 
an oath. The dean placed a paper with the form of 
words before me. In doubt whether I could sincerely 
use certain expressions I asked him what they meant. 
He gave them a broad and non-literal interpretation; to 
this I could subscribe and I took the oath. It was he 
who asked me to take it, he stood by to represent the im- 
posing power, and it would have been idle and absurd 
to insist upon taking the language in a narrower sense 
when he authorized a wider one. The case is typical. 
When the meaning of the creed is in question the church 
alone can decide, the present church, for it is the present 
church that imposes it as a test and could cease to 1m- 
pose it. If instead I had at first said to the dean, “There 
is one sense in which I can say these words and I shall 
take the oath in that sense,’ and he had heard without 
demur, the case would have been precisely the same. 
The question of veracity depends wholly on the question, 
What are the permitted meanings? No one wishes to 
forbid the literal interpretation; the wish is that the non- 
literal shall be permitted also. Anyone who looks at 
history and the growth of a social organism will see that 
there is only one way in which wider meanings can be- 
gin to be permitted, namely by precedent ; by the initiative 
of individuals, who find a larger sense possible for the 
words and let it be known that they take them in that 
sense. If the corporate church forbids this, or deems 
it ground for ejection from the ministry, the matter is 
settled—for the time at least. If the corporate church, 
knowing, does not condemn, it leaves the precedent stand- 
ing; it is permitting the new interpretation. And when 
this fact is sufficiently clear others are entitled to regard 


430 SELECTED ARTICEES 


the meaning as permitted. Individuals by their initiative 
are not merely deciding for themselves, they are playing 
a legitimate part toward forming the attitude of the 
church. Such growth and enlargement cannot be effected 
in the first instance by formal action of the whole church, 
for new interpretations must exist within the body be- 
fore it is called upon to judge of them. It is in this re- 
spect properly a slow-moving body; it does not make up 
its mind quickly, having a wide range of mind to make 
up. Much consideration, warning, experience, balancing 
of opposite forces, intellectual sympathy, charity, caution 
may go to the making of the church’s ultimate will with 
regard to such a precedent. 

The frequent indifference of society toward the in- 
dividual who is fighting its battles within the ancient or- 
ganization is seen not least in those who only too cor- 
dially agree with him in the negative or questioning part 
of his opinions; and this for the reason that they have 
little interest in the constructive and cooperative part. 
Their only aid is the casual advice to come and join 
them outside. It is, therefore, worth while to quote 
from John Stuart Mill, whom the late Lord Morley 
called “the wisest and most virtuous man whom I have 
ever known or am likely to know,” some words uttered 
in the Inaugural address which he delivered as Rector 
to the students of St. Andrew’s University: 

Those of you who are destined for the clerical profession 
are, no doubt, so far held to a certain number of doctrines, 
that, if they ceased to believe them, they would not be justified 
in remaining in a position in which they would be required to 
teach insincerely. But use your influence to make those doc- 
trines as few as possible. It is not right that men should be 
bribed to hold out against conviction—to shut their ears against 
objections, or, if the objections penetrate, to continue professing 
full and unfaltering belief when their confidence is already 
shaken. Neither is it right that, if men honestly profess to have 
changed some of their religious opinions, their honesty should 
as a matter of course exclude them from taking a part, for 
which they may be admirably qualified, in the spiritual instruc- 
tion of the nation. The tendency of the age, on both sides of the 


ancient Border, is towards the relaxation of formularies, and a 
less rigid construction of articles. This very circumstance, by 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 431 


making the limits of orthodoxy less definite, and obliging every- 
one to draw the line for himself, is an embarrassment to con- 
sciences. But I hold entirely with those clergymen who elect 
to remain in the national church, so long as they are able to 
accept its articles and confessions in any sense or with any in- 
terpretation consistent with common honesty, whether it be the 
generally received interpretation or not. If all were to desert 
the church who put a large and liberal construction on its terms 
of communion, or who would wish to see those terms widened, 
the national provision for religious teaching and worship would 
be left utterly to those who take the narrowest, the most literal, 
and purely textual view of the formularies; who, though by no 
means necessarily bigots, are under the great disadvantage of 
having bigots for their allies, and who, however great their 
merits may be—and they are often very great—yet, if the 
church is improvable, are not the most likely persons to improve 
it. Therefore, if it were not an impertinence to me to render 
advice in such a matter, I should say, let all who conscientiously 
can, remain in the church. A church is far more easily im- 
proved from within than from without. Almost all the illus- 
trious reformers of religion began by being clergymen; but they 
did not think that their profession as clergymen was incon- 
sistent with being reformers. ‘They mostly indeed ended their 
days outside the churches in which they were born; but it was 
because the churches, in an evil hour for themselves, cast 
them out. They did not think it any business of theirs to with- 
draw. They thought they had a better right to remain in the 
fold, than those had who expelled them. 


Apparently such members of the House of Bishops 
as voted on this matter in November did not hold that 
in these matters the church must act with cautious de- 
liberation, on pain of discovering that it had not been 
the church that was acting but only an insufficiently in- 
formed portion of it. Summarily to condemn the pre- 
cedents that had established freer interpretation was what 
they undertook. The house is for the most part a cau- 
tious, conciliatory, kindly body, for the individual bishops 
usually possess these qualities. But on this occasion it 
adopted and issued as a Pastoral Letter the report of a 
small committee which by implication finds well-known 
bishops, hundreds of the clergy, and thousands of the 
laity guilty of a position regarding the creeds inconsistent 
with “honesty in the use of language.” In the same con- 
nection are used the words “dishonesty and unreality.” 
The example given is the interpreting of the words “‘con- 


432 SELECTED ARTICLES 


ceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary” in 
any other than the literal sense. ‘For holding and teach- 
ing’ such an interpretation “a clergyman is liable to be 
presented for trial.’ The subject had not been announced 
in the call for the meeting as coming up for action or 
discussion and many bishops were absent. It is cred- 
ibly reported that some who were present were taken 
unawares and did not vote. The letter was in response 
to a petition addressed to the house by Senator Pepper 
of Pennsylvania and other laymen asking some definite 
pronouncement on the too free interpretations of doctrine 
in certain quarters. The report was adopted unani- 
mously. 

A Pastoral Letter is merely a species of sermon ad- 
dressed to the whole church; it has no binding authority. 
Only the decision of General Convention or of a court 
of final appeal created by General Convention could have 
that. None the less the action created instantly a new 
moral situation. So long as any fair-minded inquirer 
who asked himself, To what are the Episcopal clergy 
really committed? would find the true state of things 
and therein find the liberty that precedents had secured, 
the situation was tolerable. But when he would find 
these precedents declared null and void by a body so 
widely representative and so near the seat of legislative 
and judicial power this situation was gravely compro- 
mised. The wider interpretations had not yet by author- 
ity been forbidden but they had suffered a weighty chal- 
lenge; they had become doubtful. The precedents must 
be reestablished; that is, they must be renewed in no 
uncertain manner and must remain uncondemned by 
any final authority. Any other course would have per- 
mitted the church to lock itself in a dark room and 
throw the key out of the window. Accordingly, numer- 
ous clergymen since the Pastoral Letter have been en- 
gaged in renewing the precedents. The Modern Church- 
man’s Union and the faculty of the Episcopal Theological 
School of Cambridge, affiliated with Harvard, have 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 433 


issued protests. The rectors of the most prominent 
parishes, with few exceptions, in the largest city of the 
country have either by word or by act expressed their 
disapproval. Not widespread controversy only but still 
more widespread acute disturbance of private minds and 
feelings among devoted members of the church on both 
sides has ensued. The bishops had unwittingly thrown 
a torch into a somewhat inflammable building. 

The question was now whether they would carry 
their opinion into action and bring non-literalists to trial. 
Almost immediately afterward the Rev. Lee W. Heaton 
in the diocese of Dallas, Texas, where the bishops’ meet- 
ing had been held, was presented for trial. The Bishop 
Coadjutor of Texas announced however that, while the 
presentment was warranted, “as similar interpretations 
of the doctrine in question are held, taught and preached” 
by bishops, he was unwilling to consent to the trial, and 
waited until higher authority should point out the course 
of wisdom and justice. That is, Bishop Moore desisted 
on precisely what appeared above to be the natural 
ground, that the opinion was already too well intrenched 
mythe Chutchs >lhe-etiect of the course) hevhas taken 
is that the freer interpretation in his diocese is permit- 
ted; by an act whose deliberate and responsible char- 
acter is notably enhanced by its coming directly after 
the bishops’ pronouncement and under the aroused at- 
tention of the whole church. Unless Dr. Lawrence or 
other bishops or priests are now not only proceeded 
against but condemned for their stand on the same doc- 
trine, which is hardly likely, Bishop Moore’s action, taken 
with what preceded it, remains a definitive and historic 
step. 

To leave the subject here would be to leave a vital 
half of it unstated. What appears to be the public’s im- 
pression of the whole matter is a caricature. This is not 
a simple struggle between Modernists and conservatives, 
in which one party should conquer. To be sure the 
charges of dishonesty must be repelled and the poison- 


434 SELECTED ARTICLES 


ous suspicion of it removed by the light of day. For 
the rest, what is needed is not a triumph but a synthesis. 
The bishops in their instinct are right, though in their 
method wrong. They are springing to the defence of 
something vital. That something is the personal worship 
of Jesus Christ as an eternal presence, a being having 
not only goodness but power, a potent saviour. They 
regard this as essential to the faith and as imperilled by 
“modernism,” and they are right. 

Incidentally, be it said that it is by no means only 
“broad-churchmen” who take certain clauses of the 
creed in a non-literal sense. Many catholics or “high- 
churchmen,” including some identified with the extreme 
and strictest school, do so too; while fully retaining 
their descent? from “liberal protestantism.” 

Modernism! What an ominous party-name! An idea 
is not sound because it is modern. Not a few modern 
ideas and tendencies are bad and noxious. We should 
not be in quest of whatsoever things are modern but of 
what is true. If we are captivated by the fashions of 
thought of our own time one thing is tolerably certain, 
that we shall appear antiquated to succeeding ages. Mod- 
ernism is provincialism in the realm of time. It is rea- 
sonable-ism, true-ism that should be our only concern. 
To say “The spirit of the age has changed; we moderns 
can’t believe that sort of thing any more” is to trust to 
one of the most treacherous of guides, a contagious and 
prevailing mood or habit of mind. Education should 
enable a man to reach out beyond the currents and 
eddies of opinion in which he lives and lay hold of some- 
thing firm and unshaken, of principles of sound evidence, 
of those tests of truths that have nothing to do with 
fashion. An age gains no more than an individual from 
conceit of its ideas, and would do well to escape so far 
as it can from itself, its current impulses and easy as- 
sumptions, into a larger world, to detect its own blind-- 
nesses and learn how to cure them. Yet an age is no 
more disposed to do this than an individual. 


1 dissent? 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 435 


The progress of the church’s mind does not consist 
in discarding old Christianity or parts of it and substi- 
tuting new ideas. Its business is not to adopt modern 
thoughts as patches on an old and ragged garment. 
Christianity has a logical development from within itself. 
The more conservative it is the more progressive it must 
be, if its conservatism is genuine, for it is conservative 
of a progressive thing. It is perpetually preaching “new- 
ness of life.” A gospel of love is a gospel of ever-better 
service and, therefore, of ever-better intelligence. You 
cannot serve effectually without understanding your task, 
your beneficiary and his situation in the real world. 
“And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more 
and more in knowledge and in all judgment.” There 
is no strife between realism and idealism, for you must 
know the world as it is to make it what it should be. 
Precisely in the interests of the service for which it exists 
the church must seek light from every quarter, “sitting 
in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking 
them questions.” Its maxim must be: “Prove all things, 
hold fast that which is good.” I repeat, this comes out 
of its gospel and is not merely thrust upon it by modern 
enlightenment. In other words, the principle develops 
out of its gospel that it should take the fullest advantage 
of modern enlightenment. 

The church is conservative because what it has to 
preserve is precious. It has to preserve religion. Its 
business is not to formulate a correct philosophical 
analysis but to reveal such aspects of reality as speak to 
the will and the mood, create impulse, transform life 
and satisfy or overwhelm contemplation. Christian re- 
ligion is not merely ethics, else it could not be a power- 
ful reinforcement to ethics. It is the worship of a per- 
son embodying a principle. It understands the secret 
of the heart and loves the principle in the person. We 
see the men and women of today; we cannot see Christ 
with our literal eyes; but the mind’s eye seeks to per- 
ceive Him across the centuries as a living being; or rather 


436 ; SELECTED ARTICLES 


detaches Him from His place in history and rests upon 
Him as a timeless presence, the ever-accessible incarna- 
tion of the highest. There is indeed peril that much of 
this will be cleared ruthlessly away by levelling and mod- 
ernizing habits of thought which criticize religion as if 
it had the function of science and neglect the needs of 
the inner life as if it were an impertinent and disturb- 
ing beggar, or by a complaisant religious modernism 
which yields too far to these habits. It is truth that 
for the soul the intervention of centuries is irrelevant 
and that Christ is a pfesent and intimate saviour. For 
it was true that in intent His compassion and will to 
understand knew no limit and that He reserved a deli- 
cate sympathy for every soul that might come to Him. 
That He asks men to repent, brings them forgiveness, 
gives them strength to amend, and is with them as con- 
soler and support, has a truth far profounder than the 
barriers of historic time that divide Him from us. It 
is true that simple souls (and in this all souls are simple) 
may cast their cares on Him and feel relief. In this 
light, as the instantaneous deliverer of the spirit, an air 
of the transcendent and miraculous justly clings about 
Him—an air of one “supernatural, superrational, super- 
everything.” To tamper with it seems to threaten His 
power and competence as a deliverer. The philosophy 
does not exist, nor the delicate justice to the facts, which 
would fully interpret and vindicate all this. In the in- 
terests of the soul during a difficult period of transition 
it may for some be far truer to surround the doctrine 
of the virgin birth with a wide and inviolate circle of 
reverence and caution, than to enter, as here, upon 
analysis. It is unpardonably wrong to teach something 
untrue because it will do good, but it may be right to 
refrain from teaching something true to certain persons 
because it will do harm; that is, because it would be ask- 
ing too much to expect them to discern it without further 
intellectual experience, in its true perspective. No false 
word should be said, but—-any word, in this sphere, 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 437 


paralyzing to the spiritual life is a false word. Few 
critics appear to grasp the whole function of symbolism. 
It is common to say “Oh that is symbolism, is it? Very 
well. But putting symbolism aside and speaking seri- 
ously,” etc. It is not perceived that a symbol may be an 
instrument of knowledge, a means to practical truth, that 
its office is to exert forthwith the power upon life that 
philosophic truth ought to exert when at length secured 
and seen in all its true proportions. 

Thus the bishops were hastening to the defence of a 
life, a habit of spiritual devotion, a source of power. 
Minds accustomed to an accepted body of ideas and not 
to its analysis must feel the whole threatened if rude 
hands are laid on any part. None the less the deep truth 
in Christian dogma must in its own interest be freed 
as soon as possible from literal misstatement of historical 
or cosmic fact and relieved from any conflict with the 
discoveries of intelligence. The gospel of intelligence 
must fully be joined to the gospel of the spirit. The 
task of complete synthesis is perhaps the most arduous 
that the human mind has ever attempted and it is but 
too easy for the advance-agents of enlightenment to “sub- 
stitute a rude simplicity for the complexity of truth.” 
Still, those who say, “This is a difficult time of intellect- 
ual transition’ must not proceed, by a policy of per- 
sistent silence, to make that time as long as possible. 
Reserve within the church, which every mind of judg- 
ment and weight knows to be sometimes indispensable, 
should have its limits and never be taken up as a per- 
manent attitude; it should keep watch for the oppor- 
tunities to carry the transition forward. 

Still more firmly must it be said that to disregard 
Christian morals in the attempt to preserve Christian doc- 
trine is of unhappy omen. The bishops address an em- 
phatic admonition to conscience, declaring that a non- 
literal interpretation of the clause concerning Christ’s 
birth is “plainly an abuse of language,” implying that 
it is “to trifle with words and cannot but expose us to 
the suspicion and danger of dishonesty and unreality.” 


438 SLLECTED ‘ARTICLES 


Indeed they go further and appear to imply or suggest 
that it is flatly inconsistent with “honesty in the use of 
language.”’ To conscience they appeal, let conscience 
speak. To bring such charges by plain implication against 
so many men OF long service and honorable standing 
‘ without taking up, or hinting at the existence of, the 
case for the defence, as stated above and in innumerable 
other forms before, without considering the decisions of 
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the 
mother-church of England, without evincing any sense 
that such men must have something to say for themselves 
and that such a movement in history can hardly have 
been oblivious of moral considerations; this was to risk 
using their authority, as unhappily they have actually 
used it, to promulgate or suggest an injurious slander. 

The bishops continue: “Objections to the doctrine of 
the virgin birth [meaning the literal doctrine] . . . have 
been abundantly dealt with by the best scholarship of 
the day.” They have of course been “dealt with” by 
scholarship of various grades, but the bishops evidently 
mean, not merely dealt with, but effectually met. What 
a curious conception of the legitimate grounds of belief 
is betrayed by assuring us that all is well because ‘“ob- 
jections” “have been abundantly dealt with!” To prove 
an alleged historical fact what we need is sufficient evi- 
dence that it occurred: to controvert the objections that 
happen to have been made by this or that person or even 
to offer an explanation of the difficulties presented by 
the records, is not the primary requirement. That we are 
entitled to assume an alleged occurrence to have taken 
place until objections are made to it, which then have 
to be ‘dealt with,’ does indeed appear to be the im- 
pression of many minds but it receives no encourage- 
ment from logic. If the testimony of the church is in- 
voked as the initial authority then that authority must 
first of all be validated from the ground up as adequate 
in respect of this particular event. 

It would have been a more congental task to write 
this article without a word to intimate that one position 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 439 


on the historical question was better intrenched than the 
other. But the bishops in an official document have un- 
dertaken to pronounce that the. position they oppose is 
based on inferior scholarship. Once more, we have no 
right by our considerate reserves to prolong the period 
of precarious transition which they are intended to safe- 
guard. The Pastoral Letter has precipitated a necessity 
for plain speaking under which we can no longer cour- 
teously cloak the fact that no thoroughly educated man 
believes in the literal virgin birth ;—though many men do 
so whose spiritual life, ability and efficiency command 
our admiration. By education I do not mean learning, 
but the possession of a competent common-sense training 
in judging of ordinary matters of evidence. It by no 
means follows that all who do not believe are thoroughly 
educated. Loyalty to the clergy is a fine thing, so long 
as it is consistent with loyalty to the church and to hu- 
manity. It is sometimes said that the literal version of 
the doctrine is rendered so highly probable by certain 
presuppositions that it does not require such ample evi- 
dence as is supposed. But the presuppositions themselves 
rest upon the slenderest basis of evidence. It is not un- 
til we recognize that here too are stern matters of moral 
principle, that the faithful pursuit of truth by the path 
of sound method and intellectual honor—a well-marked 
path for those who sufficiently desire it—is the one hope 
of mankind for the solution of its problems that we shall 
escape from the welter of arbitrary opinion. 


| Perl bah ND HE. CREEDS: 

PEPER, POsTHE;, ALUMNI? FROM “THE PAG- 

Pei ent by Pel oOOP AR CEBOLOGICAL 
SCHOOL ATyGAMBRIDGE, MASS 


We hear that many of you want to know how we as 
a faculty feel in regard to the problems at present be- 
fore our church. 


1 From Christian Work. 116: 150-2. February 2, 1924. 


440 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Our first word would be this: Let every thought that 
Cambridge men utter be constructive. Let every one 
of us remember that in time of crisis he should show 
forth the spirit of Christ even more clearly than when 
all is going well. May we all take the opportunity to 
seek out those with whom we disagree, and in conver- 
sation and conference talk things over with the utmost 
candor, remembering that we are brothers in one family, 
assuming that the religious experience of him with whom 
we talk is as deep and as rich as ours, striving to see 
that the heart of his conviction and ours may be the 
same. May we use these days for preaching and living 
the gospel as never before. While honest in thought and 
frank in speech, let us be humble in dealing with the 
mysteries of God. May alumni and faculty unite in this 
endeavor. 

Secondly, let us turn at once to the questions which 
the publication of the Pastoral Letter has suggested. 

The bishops would be the first to assert that they 
have no canonical authority to define the faith, and there- 
fore, that their message is one of guidance rather than 
one of command. They themselves spoke of it as a mes- 
sage of reassurance. They have, we are confident, ear- 
nestly tried to allay the fears of many who believe that 
the faith of the church is in danger. 

Furthermore, the bishops bear witness to the rich 
spiritual meaning which underlies a strict construction 
of certain clauses of the creeds, and particularly that re- 
garding the virgin birth. Although they would not say 
that the incarnation is dependent upon the method by 
which our Lord came into the world, they would say that 
His life plainly points to such a miraculous advent, Men 
and women have lived, are living, and will live under the 
comforting assurance that this is a way in which God 
has revealed Himself to men. 

We would at once acknowledge the wealth of such 
experience. History is filled with it; saints have been 
made by it; conduct is controlled by it; theories of life 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 441 


are built upon it. We would deplore the fact that men 
occasionally have spoken of it lightly. But we regret that 
others, quite as ardently convinced that the divine and 
the human are inseparably united in Christ, fully as sin- 
cere believers in the incarnation, should have any sus- 
picion cast upon their full membership in our church or 
on their right of entrance into it. The bishops’ letter 
has cast such suspicion on the membership of those who 
are unable to affirm belief in the virgin birth as a fact of 
history. 

The problem which the church faces is not one of 
opening or closing its doors to those of differing attitude 
toward the creeds. It is rather one of excluding many 
who are already within it. The church is at present in- 
clusive of varying points of view. Men and women oc- 
cupying such different positions are at present bound to- 
gether in the closest bonds of common prayer; they find 
deep spiritual satisfaction in the same liturgical forms; 
their worship centers in the Holy Communion as our 
church administers it; they cherish the same religious 
ancestry. 

The fact that these differences exist within the one 
body does not release us from the obligation to consider 
earnestly the foundations of our fellowship and our duty 
toward the formularies in which they are now ex- 
pressed. As a Christian church we must share a positive 
faith which we witness to the world. There must be 
positive standards of membership and teaching, of wor- 
ship and discipline. Our existing standards of faith 
are nowhere closely defined, but clearly include the Bible, 
the Prayer Book, and the Ordinal. The creeds are but 
a part of this larger standard. They gain special promi- 
nence because they are definite affirmations of faith and 
because the Apostles’ Creed is the expression of faith 
required at baptism. They are, however, only part of a 
larger standard, all of which is in force from the strict 
legal viewpoint. The issues raised by the attitude of 
some toward the creeds are likewise raised by the atti- 


442 SELECTED ARTICLES 


tude of larger sections of the church toward the Bible 
and by the practice of still other sections of the church 
in regard to the standards of worship. The strain aris- 
ing from the use of ancient formularies in days of rapidly 
changing thought, and the difficulty of giving liberty to 
the many minds and temperaments within the one body 
without sacrificing the positive unity of the church, 
create problems which all of us must face together. 

Are we prepared for a rigid, even-handed, legalistic 
application of the whole standard of doctrine, discipline 
and worship? Such an application of the standard 
plainly embodied in the Ordinal would bind us to a view 
of the Scriptures held strictly by few of the ministers 
of this church. Presumably, the question in the Order- 
ing of Deacons, “Do you unfeignedly believe all the 
canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament?” 
means what it says. Likewise, a rigid enforcement of 
the ordination vows regarding conformity to the worship 
of this church would straightway stop liturgical and ritual 
usages, popularly called “high,” which correspond with 
the beliefs and meet the religious needs of a strong sec- 
tion of the church. We believe that this inclusiveness 
should be increased in order that the Spirit of Christ, 
using many minds and temperaments, may sift out that 
in all of us which is true and good and saving. But 
liberty cannot be given in the application and interpreta- 
tion of one part of our common standards while it is 
denied in regard to other parts. 

The Pastoral Letter not only selected the creeds from 
the larger standard of faith and worship as being 
peculiarly binding, but selected from the creeds certain 
clauses as requiring literal acceptance, in particular those 
regarding the virgin birth and the resurrection of the 
body. With the exception of the obscure clause con- 
cerning “the communion of saints,” the original meaning 
of most of the clauses of the creeds is plain. “Born of 
the Virgin Mary” means exactly what it says, that 1s, 
without human father. “He ascended into heaven” 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 443 


means He went up into heaven. “The resurrection of 
the body” means the raising up again of the flesh. From 
very early times there have been divergent interpretations 
of some of these clauses. Throughout the history of 
the church the more thoughtful have recognized that 
“heaven” could not be located above the earth, and that 
an entrance into heaven could not be witnessed. But 
they have accepted the traditional report of a physical 
ascent of Christ as in some way symbolical ot the spirit- 
ual event. There have been divergent interpretations of 
the “resurrection of the body,” which have had their 
roots and justification in the different views to be found 
within the New Testament itself. With the passing of 
the biblical view of the physical universe a large propor- 
tion of laity and clergy have found interpretation in- 
creasingly necessary. We venture to believe that there 
are many within the church who could not confidently 
affirm a bodily ascension, or a visible coming down again 
of Christ from heaven for judgment, or a raising up 
again of their flesh, who now express through this 
ancient medium what they believe to be the underlying 
religious truths, as, for example, that Christ truly went 
to God to share in His glory, that in Christ we face our 
final judge, and that God will bring us after death into 
eternal life. We are unable to recognize a distinction 
which would permit interpretation of these other clauses 
and deny it in the case of the virgin birth. The latter 
is simply the last of those clauses to which interpretation 
is applied. All alike are interpretations enforced by a 
doubt concerning the literal historical facts clearly indi- 
cated by the words. 

We must respectfully dissent from the statement in 
the Pastoral that objections to the historicity of the vir- 
gin birth “have been abundantly dealt with by the best 
scholarship of the day.” Reverently recognizing its place 
in the Gospel record and in the tradition of the church, 
it is our judgment that the historical evidence is em- 
phatically two-sided. For many, probably for most, of 


444 SELECTED )} ARTICLES 


the laity and clergy of this church, belief in the virgin 
birth is intimately bound up with faith in Christ and the 
incarnation, and is considered essential to a true appre- 
ciation of our Lord. Under such circumstances careless 
and confident denial would be both dogmatic and incon- 
siderate. The doubts, however, have been raised by a 
God-fearing search for truth in history and nature, and 
cannot be repressed by any official action or by any will 
to obey. It must be recognized that many honest men 
and women within the church do not find belief in the 
virgin birth essential to their whole-hearted . faith in 
Christ and in the incarnation. As such we hold a place 
within this branch of the church of Christ. 

The church is greater than the creeds. The central 
faith in God as He is found in Christ, upon which the 
church is built, is not destroyed or diminished by doubts 
concerning the method of Christ’s birth, of His return 
to God, or of His future judgment. The church made 
the creeds. The creeds did not make the church. The 
church was and is a fellowship issuing from the love 
and power of Christ which has shaped the creeds for 
its own purposes. What the church has made it can 
remake. Tradition is still in the making; the inner life 
of the church is still forcing itself to expression. We 
do not find the creeds perfectly adequate as expressions 
of Christian allegiance, as summaries of the Christian 
view of life, or as tests of discipleship. To leave the 
church because of dissatisfaction with clauses in the 
creeds would be to put the creeds above Christ and His 
church, and to pursue a fruitless sectarianism. 

This is not the first time the church has been cen- 
fronted with changes in its belief, nor the first time it 
has allowed freedom of interpretation, nor the first time 
violence seems to have been done to its formularies. 
The Reformation brought changes in the doctrine of 
the Lord’s Supper, a doctrine which had been established 
for centuries and which men claimed was found in the 
Scriptures. The last fifty years have brought changes 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 445 


in the views of the Bible, a book which has been re- 
garded as the inerrant Word of God from the first cen- 
turies until modern times. Without prejudging the issue 
of the present controversy, we are confident that only 
the Spirit of Christ, giving us trust in God’s truth and 
love for one another, can guide us to saving wisdom. 

In any society, civil or religious, when the formularies 
in their original intention have ceased to represent the 
mind of the society or of a large section of it, the alterna- 
tives to literal adherence or withdrawal are interpreta- 
tion and restatement. In the case of the creeds, inter- 
pretation is not an attempt to explain away plain his- 
torical meanings, but a discovery, in the only language 
now authorized by the church, of the underlying religious 
meaning. We believe that a large proportion of the 
church now finds itself forced to this expedient in the 
use of various parts of our formularies. We agree with 
the bishops that such use of language involves serious 
risk. 

All who find themselves forced to the expedient of 
interpretation are under obligation to work for greater 
constitutional liberty and for more adequate terms in 
which to test and express discipleship. Such liberty 
might be secured by making the use of the creeds per- 
missive instead of obligatory, and in the development of 
alternative forms to be tested by patient experience. A 
freedom of this kind would secure the effective use of 
the creeds by those for whom they rightly have so great 
religious value without compelling others to whom they 
present difficulties to subscribe to them in detail or to 
repeat them on practically every occasion of public wor- 
ship. As the church throughout the major part of its 
experience has allowed wide latitude in its forms of 
liturgical expression, it is possible that it may become 
stronger and still more catholic if its congregations are 
allowed a generous range of liturgical freedom. 

Finally, we urge that the real ground for anxiety on 
the part of the whole church is not our divergence over 


446 SELECTED ARTICLES 


the things wherein we differ, but our half-heartedness im 
the religious affirmations that we share. At the founda- 
tion of our fellowship and at the heart of the creeds. 
lies the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord, the recog- 
nition in Him of very God. Are we prepared to accept 
in our lives the implications of that confession, to permit 
Christ to be the Lord of our appetites, the Lord of our 
relations with our neighbors, the Lord of our family life, 
of our industrial and business relations? Every man who: 
enters into the religious meaning of the ancient creeds 
stands upon his feet and joins hands with the great body 
of Christians throughout the centuries, and says that he 
believes in God; that he believes in a Righteous Will 
working in creation; he believes in Christ, the Son of 
God, the very life and love of God in terms of our hu- 
man life; he believes in the Spirit, God working within 
us to draw us to Himself; he believes in the church, the 
fellowship of those who draw their strength from Christ ;. 
he believes in forgiveness, the undiscouraged love of God 
for us which demands an undiscouraged love for one 
another; he believes in our victory over death and the 
life of ever-deepening fellowship. We appeal to our 
chief pastors to summon us again and again to this faith 
and to hold us to a strict account in our sworn loyalty 
to it. 
(Signed) *? HENrRy BraDFoRD WASHBURN, 

Max KELLNER, 

SAMUEL McComs, 

WILLIAM H. P. Hatcs, 

JAMEs ARTHUR MULLER, 

JAMEs THAYER ADDISON, 

NorMAN Burpvetr NASH, 

Ancus Dun. 


1 Edward Staples Brown, the only member of the faculty who did not 
sign, was teaching in St. John’s University, Shanghai, China. 


INDEX 


Abraham, 134, 143, 154 

Affirmation signed by over 150 
Presbyterians, 404 

Alignment of parties, 13 

Amraphel, 144 

Apocalypse, 1, 6, 207 

Apollinarius, 413 

Apostles’ Creed, text, 17; author- 
ship, 17 note, 64; to be inter- 
preted by Nicene Creed, 367. See 
Creed 

Archaeology vs. higher criticism, 
142 

Arnold, Matthew, 41 

Articles, Thirty-nine, not the creed 
of Episcopal church, 381 

Atonement, statements of creeds, 20, 
21, 23, 26; Bryan’s discussion, 36 

Augustine on seience and the Bible, 
276 

Augustus, story of his birth, 106 

Authority, necessary in science, not 
religion, 215; true authority of 
Bible, 208 


Bacon, B. W., 328 

Baptists, 13, 21, 411 

Barnes, Canon, 256, 296 

Barton, W. E., 395 

Bateson, 235, 253, 280 

Bergson, 247 

Bible, two views summarized, 5-8; 
statements of creeds, 18, 21, 22, 
25, 26; Reformers and the Bible, 
5; inerrancy and verbal inspira- 
tion, 5; Bible never equalled, 32; 
objector must himself be infal- 
lible, 33; modern uncertainty, 
115; infallible Bible vs. infallible 
church, 116; Bible claims to be 
authoritative, 116; church fathers 
so held, 117; three necessary cle- 
ments of a doctrine of Scripture, 
122; structure, 122; supernatural 
revelation, 127; inspired book, 
129, 253; ~ contradictions  ex- 
plained, 178; both views find 
support in Bible, 72; modernist 
view of inspiration, 191; modern- 
ist view of authority, 195, 208; 
Bible does not claim inerrancy, 
407; Luther’s free attitude, 197; 
not intended for oracle, 212; val- 
uable but not perfect, 214; not 
to be followed in everything be- 
cause not self-consistent, 197- 
200; Clarke’s change of view, 
197; religious progress within 


Bible, 201; mistaken ascriptions 
of authorship, 204; inconsisten- 
cies, 204; untrue statements in 
Bible, 205; gross ideas, 206; 
gains from new view, 220-3, 225- 
7;, Bible not an authority on 
science, 276, 284, 292; primitive 
science in Bible, 285; Bryan un- 
just to Bible, 286; Westminster 
Confession does not declare it 
inerrant, 407. 
See Inerrancy, Inspiration, In- 

_fallibility 

Bishops’ letter, 366, 383, 385, 410, 
426, 440 

Bishop, George H., 157 

Brookes, 163, 171 

Brooks, Phillips, 303, 390, 413 

Buckle’s application of evolution a 
ailure, 139 

Buddha, stories of his birth, 320 

Burrell, D. J., 157, 177 

Burroughs, John, 273 

Bryan, 32, 58, 250, 263, 272, 282, 
290, 363 


Calvin, 53, 403 

Canon, 113 

Cathedral-building, a sin, 107; will 
not be hindered by bishop’s stand 
for orthodoxy, 380 

Catholic movement in Church of 
England delays reconciliation with 
science, 301 

Catholicism, Protestantism must not 
imitate, 43 

Chalmers, 154, 376 

Channing, 393 

Cheyne, 141, 142 

Chiliasm, 365 

Christ. See Jesus 

Christianity, static or growing? 30, 
41; affected by secular environ- 
ment, 296; essential character re- 
mains permanent, 298; Christian- 
ity and liberalism are different re- 
ligions, 361, 366 

Church, modernists seek a compre- 
hensive, 70, 101; evangelical 
church based on a_ particular 
message, 362; inclusiveness justi- 
fied by Acts 15, 395; inclusive or 
exclusive? 395, 396 

Church of England, 54, 301, 412 

Clark, Bishop, 413 

Clarke, W. N., 189, 197 

Clay, 143 


Coffin, H. S., 305 


448 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Colenso, 412 

Coleridge, 41, 136 

Columbus found sphericity of earth 
in Bible, 269 

Seed religion, effects of its 
study, 

Conklin, é. G., 263 

Conservatism, not identical with 
fundamentalism, 1, 69. See 
Orthodoxy 

Controversy, possible good results, 
100; delays work of church, 103; 
causes anxiety among simple 
Christians, 103; distracts attention 
from social tasks, 106-9 

Copernicus, 3, 5, 260, 270, 285 

Crapsey, A. S., 105 

Creed, Apostles’, 11, 17, 64; Ni- 
cene, 11, 17; of Baptist Bible 
Union, 215; of ja “college, 25; 
Kansas City creed, 26; what bond 
instead of common creed? 354; 
creeds state facts, not explana- 
tions, 367; Apostles’ Creed to be 
interpreted by Nicene, 367; 
clergy may not deny items in 
creed, 368, 383; permissive use 
proposed, 445; a disturbing pro- 
posal, 389; earlier creed cannot 
interpret later, 413; value of 
literal belief admitted, 440; con- 
sistent enforcement of standard of 
belief and worship undesirable, 
442; church made and may mod- 
ify creeds, 444 

Criticism, literary, of the Bible, 
now current is largely mistaken, 
118; deprives Bible of most of 
its value, 119; fallacies listed, 
131-52; definition of “higher 
criticism,” 131; its “assured re- 
sults,’’ 133-6; disregards  testi- 
mony of archaeology, 142; pro- 
found effects admitted by a lib- 
eral, 208 


D, supposed Old Testament writer, 
133 

Darwin, - 3, °36, 234, 250-61;¥265, 
272, 283, 290. See Darwinism, 
Evolution 

Darwinism, modified, 234; natural 
selection, 251; sexual selection, 
251; a guess, 251; not supported 
by Bible, 252; Bateson’s admis- 
sion, 253, 280; Darwinism deals 
in absurdities, 253; destroys 
faith in Bible, 255; led Darwin 
to agnosticism, 257; another ex- 
planation of this, 290; Darwinism 
and Biblical criticism, 138. See 
Darwin, Evolution 

David as psalm-writer, 135, 
204 

Dawson, Sir William, 239 

Denomination, what right has one 
to exist? 47 


145-8, 


Descent of man. See Darwin, Dar-- 
winism, Evolution 

Deuteronomy, written by Moses? 
133, 149 

De Vries, 266 

De Witt, 159 

Dickinson, Jonathan, 4o1 

Discrepancies in Bible explained,. 
178; trifling discrepancies do not 
destroy reliability, 187 

Doctrines of New Testament valid: 
for all time, 31 

Documentary hypothesis, 132 

Drake, Durant, 203, 344 

Driver, 137. 245;)4202 

Drummond, 239, 290 

Du Bose, 389 


E, supposed Old Testament writer,. 


12s 

Eddy, Sherwood, 292 

Eichhorn, 132 

Emmett, C. W., 54 

Episcopal raph ear? ait 13, .105;. 3007, 
379, 410, 426, 

Episcopal Theological School, 
439 

Erasmus, 41 

Etheridge, 233 

Evolution, statements of creeds, 22, 
256; two views summarized, 83. 
effect on theology, 3; as applied 
to literature and religion a fal- 
lacy, 137; Need of careful defini- 
tion, 232; no change of species. 
proved, 233, 252; false uses of 
term ‘evolution,’ 234; evolution 
and atheistic philosophy, 237; op- 
posed by scientists, 239; theistic 
evolution, 239; Genesis agrees 
with science 242ff; evolution 
cannot explain mind, language, 
conscience, 245; the ape theory,,. 
246; evolution by leaps, 247; 
evolution leads to loss of faith,. 
255-9; puts God far away, 256; let 
unbelieving evolutionists maintain 
their own schools, 260; all nat- 
uralists believe in evolution, 273; 
Bible does not teach science, 276, 
284; origin of species solved, 277; 
Bateson’s words an admission of 
failure? 235, 253, 280; evolution 
does not degrade man, 287; does 
not necessarily involve material- 
ism, 288; does not put God far 
away, 289; McCosh combined evo- 
lution and_ religion, 274; so: 
Kingsley, 274; so Drummond,. 
290 

Ezra. 


432, 


See Law-code 


Faith as adventure, 94; as_ per- 
sonal conviction, 95; distinguished: 
from forms of expression, 367 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 449 


Marrareat, 172 

Five points of Presbyterian doc- 
trine, 21; discussed by Bryan, 
32-9; not consistent, 102; cited 
by Macartney, 374; commit Pres- 
byterian church to a particular 
set of theories, 409 

Fleischmann, 236 

Forgery, 2 Peter held to be, 204 

Bees Ai, 201, 5215; 282, 36 1,'340; 
39 

Foster, G. B.,13 

Frank, Glenn, 92, 104 

Fundamental doctrines, what are? 
29; only fundamental is the spirit, 
59-67; three fundamentals, God, 
sin, Christ, 104 

Fundamentalism, not identical with 
conservatism, 1; is a protest, 29; 
contrary to teachings of Christ 
and Paul, 30; its main convic- 
tions, 31; is diluted Romanism, 


52; a misnomer, rather New 
Foundationists, 100; few ortho- 
dox Episcopalians are Funda- 


mentalists, 381 


Galileo, 260, 270, 285 

Gaussen, 167 

God, controversy issues from differ- 
ing views of, 67-82, due to dif- 
ferent underlying imagery, 71; 
fundamentalism thinks in terms 
of monarchy, 76, modernism 
cannot do so, 79; evolution puts 
God far away, 256; this denied, 
289; God as mind and heart of 
universe rather than judge, 097; 
Deed in God among educated, 
25 

Gordon, A. J., 162, 170 

Gordon, George A., 308, 330, 345 

Gospels, probably not by supposed 
authors, 204 

Grant, 411 

Gray, James M., 153, 311 

Green, 136 


Haeckel, 239, 243 

Hammurabi, 144 

Harkness, 373 

Heaton, Lee W., 424, 433 

Henslow, 234 

Hexateuch, 133, 134. 
teuch 

Hillis, N. D., 290 

Historical method, meaning and ef- 
fects, 3 

Hodge, 154, 178, 371 

ates abe oe modernists, 361, 362, 
363, 368, 393, 410, 421, 427, 42 

Howland, M. S., 30 rou? 

Hume, David, 307 

Huxley, 232, 236, 275 

Hymns a uniting force because not 
theological, 99 


See Penta- 


Inerrancy of Bible asserted, 21, 
25, 187; defined, 187; not as- 
serted in Bible or Westminster 
Confession, 407. See Bible, In- 
fallibility, Inspiration 

Infallibility of Bible vs. church, 
116; intallible authority in Prot- 
estanism illogical, 214. See In- 
errancy, Inspiration, Bible 

Ingersoll, modern view of Bible 
makes his attack obsolete, 6 

age over cross, four forms, 
180 

Inspiration- of Bible, 129, 1533 
Bible’s test of, 130; Gray’s defi- 
nition, 154-8; extends to words, 
158; proof of inspiration, 162; 
objections answered, 177; Bible 
claims verbal inspiration, 170; 
verbal inspiration not necessary, 


209; claimed only for original 
record, 156. See Bible, Infal- 
libility, Inerrancy 

Interpretation, must not become 
denial, 361, 386; non-literal in- 


terpretation of part of creed al- 

ready permitted, 417, 442; new 

interpretations become permissible 

by precedent, 429; what liberals 

mean by “interpretation,” 445 
Intolerance, 362, 363 


J, supposed Old Testament writer, 
133 

jefferson, C. E., 209, 210 

Jesus, creed declares Him to be 
God, 369, 382; fundamentalism 
approaches Him by dogmatic 
route, modernism as fact in his- 
tory, 82; modernism would loos- 
en fact from interpretation, 84; 
modern discovery of historical 
Jesus a gain, 86; God, not Christ, 
is problem, Christ explains God, 
89; religion of Jesus vs. religion 
about Jesus, 4, 94; we must fol- 
low Jesus rather than Paul, 90; 
Fosdick on deity of Christ, 349; 
His religion a way of life, not a 
philosophy, 95; cites Jonah, 211; 
uses Old Testament as inspired, 
130 

Johnson, Franklin, 131, 179 

Jonah, did Jesus cite as history? 
211 

Jordan, 138, 143 

Jot or tittle, 175 


Keim’s theory of resurrection, 341 

Kelvin, 240, 265 

Kent iCy Ee errs. aa 

King of the Jews, four forms of 
inscription, 180 

Kingsley, Charles, 274 

Kuenen, 134 


450 SELECTED ARTICLES 


Lake, Kirsopp, 13, 346 

La Place, 73 

Law-code of Old Testament, criti- 
cal theory, 134; post-exilian origin 
impossible, 125, 150 

Lawrence, Bishop, 421, 424, 433 

Laws of nature and miracle-stories, 
3, 307, 308 

Leuba’s questionnaire, 258 

Levites, 125, 126 

Liberals, many moderate ones not 
modernists, 1 

Literalists, real issue is between 
them and liberals, 102 

Lodge, Sir Oliver, 240, 244 

Luther, 53)'-107;.270,).205 

Lyell, Sir Charles, 269, 275 


Macalister’s excavations, 144 

Macartney, C. E., 29, 187 

Macaulay, 136 

MacCallum, J. A., 29 

Machen, 361, 362 

Manning, Bishop, 106, 353, 379 

Mary. See Virgin birth 

Maurice, F. D., 274, 412 

McComb, Samuel, 30 

McCosh, 239, 274 

McGiffert, A. C., 208 

McKim, 412 

Mendel, 278 

Merrill, W. P., 43, 59, 397 ; 

Mill, J. S., urged liberals to remain 
in church, 430 

Millennium, 1; both views in Bible, 


198 

Miller, Dickinson S., 426 

Millikan, R. A., 294 

Miracles, Protestant may believe in, 
but must not make a test, 51; 
prejudice against them a fallacy, 
140, 387, 389; miracles could 
prove nothing, 213; Hume on 
miracles, 307; Rashdall’s similar 
view, 308; not essential to Chris- 
tianity, 308 

Miracles of Christ, statements of 
creeds, 21; logically second of 
“five points,” 39 miracle-stories, 
true or not, indicate impression 
made by Jesus, 308 

Modern Churchmen’s 
432 

Modern view of the world, 2; two 
attitudes of theology toward, 4. 

Modernism, a correct designation, 
2; a foolish name, 101; varieties, 
4, 101; an English Modernist’s 
description, 54; more radical 
than the Modernists, 358; seen 
in Pastoral Letter, 410; must 
combine naturalism, art, and 
faith, 358; dangers admitted, 434; 
need of bold utterance on oc- 
casion, 437 

Monod, 174 

Moore, Bishop, 433 


Union; .55; 


Spa 266 

oses, 122, 125, 146, 150, 151, 154 

Mullins, E. Y., 333 f ; 

Myth, God can use as well as his- 
tory, 210 


Newman, H. H., 263 

New Testament, origin of, 113 

Newton’s theory of gravitation de- 
clared atheistic, 270 

Nicene Creed, text, 17; authorship, 
17 note 


Open vs. closed mind, 55 

Origin of species. See Darwin, Dar- 
winism, Evolution 

Orr, James, 115, 137, 147, 235, 320 

Orthodoxy, why more popular, 104 


See Conservatism, Fundamental- 
ism 

Osborn, H. F.,. 238, 272 

Otto, 235 


Oxford movement, 302 


P, supposed Old Testament writer, 


134 
. Parks, Leighton, 106, 410, 422 


Pastoral Letter, 366, 383, 385, 410, 
426, 440 

Patton, 153 

Paul,.\6,, 04,. 120w325; 2a770wermuse 
follow Jesus rather than Paul, 
90; his religion different from 
that of Jesus, 90 

Pearson, Bishop, 315 

Pentateuch, 133; analysis a fallacy, 
136; written long after Moses, 
204; Colenso, 412 

Postmillennialism and social better- 
ment, 2 

Potter, Bishop, 384 

Prayer-book, literary criticism can- 
not analyze, 136 

Premillennarians, term defined, 1; 
not all fundamentalists are pre- 
millennarians, 1; premillennialism 
and social betterment, 2; Prince- 
ton Seminary professor thinks it 
‘not a deadly error, 365; present 
issue not over premillennialism, 
366 

Presbyterians, 11, 13, 18, 21, 32, 
187, 365, 369, 397, 411; Pres- 
byterian church based on com- 
promise, 400; relation of church 
to Westminster Confession, 369- 
79, 401, 406; early testimony to 
its catholicity, 402; affirmation 
on unity and liberty, 404; five 
points of doctrine, 21; formation 


of Presbyterian Church in 
A., 406; reunion of two 
parts, and with Cumberland 


Church, 406; doctrinal declara- 
tions of General Assembly not 
binding, 407; Assembly hasty in 
condemning Fosdick, 408; affir- 


FUNDAMENTALISM VS. MODERNISM 451 


mation objects to five points, 
408; affirmation remains within 
evangelical Christianity, 409; aim 
of the affirmation, 410 

Priestly legislation. See Law-code 

Princeton Theological Seminary, 13 

Progress in religion anticipated by 
Jesus, 42 

Prophecy, modernism denies predic- 
tions, 84, 213 

Prophets, make church voice of liv- 
ing as well as dead, 98 

Protestantism must cease going in 
Rome’s ways, 43-54; must aban- 
don external authority, 46; must 
make religion a life, not a for- 
mula, 48; must trust scientific 
method, 49; must value present 
reality, 50 

Psalms, 135; not post-exilic, 145-8, 
204 


Ramsay, Sir William, 314 

Rashdall, Dean H. H., 218, 305, 346 

Redemption for institutions as well 
as individuals, 99 

Reformation, a new one needed, 30 

Religion; are modernism and funda- 
mentalism distinct religions? 69; 
religion like science deals in 
reasonable hypotheses, 299; 
Christianity and liberalism are 
two religions, 361 

Renan, 342 

Resurrection of Jesus, statements 
of creeds, 17, 18, 20, 21; 23, 26; 
the issue summarized, 0, Tis; és- 
sential to Christianity, 37, 344; 
what Christians believe, 333; sup- 
ported by good evidence, 334ff; 
testimony of gospels, 335; testi- 
mony of Paul, 337; sudden 
transformation of apostles, 338; 
Sunday took place of Sabbath, 
340; theory of fraud, 340; swoon 
theory, 340; spiritualistic theory, 
341; hallucination theory, 341; 
Bible, not creeds, must give us 
our view, 414; Bible justifies both 
views, 416; Paul, earlier than 
gospels, does not teach bodily 
resurrection, 344; bodily resur- 
rection not essential, 345, 348; 
bodily resurrection out of the 
question, 346; a suggested ex- 
piapation of the empty tomb, 
34 

Revelation, 115, 127; regarded as 
completed, 56; as continued, 57 

Revelation of St. John. See Apoca- 
lypse 

Rhees, Rush, 325 


Rice, J 
Right of i oternicis in orthodox 
churches, 353-446; argument 


summarized, 11-13 
Ritual and beauty needed by mod- 
ernism, 97 


Robertson, Frederick W., 53 

Robinson, John, 53, 403 

Romanes, 243, 267 

Romanism, conservative Protestant- 
ism differs from it less than 
from liberalism, 366; Protestant- 
ism must cease imitating it, 43- 


54 
Roosevelt, 39 


Sabatier, 212, 213, 214 

Sabbath replaced by Sunday, 340 

Sacred, merge with secular, 99 

Satan, 78, 205 

Scholars, ae 184, 369, 
425, 438, 

Schools, should evolution be taught 
in? 259 

Science, its loyalty to truth, 281; 
effects of science on Christian- 
ity, 296; joint statement on re- 
lations of science and religion, 
294; Bible not an authority on 
science, 276, 284, 292; primitive 
science in Bible, 285; use of 
science by religion, not recon- 
ciliation to religion, 96 

Scientific method, must be used in 
theology, 301 

Scotti Daereus22s 

Scripture. See Bible 

Second coming of Christ, 1; state- 
ments of creeds, 17, 18, 20, 25, 
26; before or after millennium? 


2 

Shakespeare, literary criticism -can- 
not discover his writing in mixed 
plays, 136 

Shaler, 236 

Sin as harm to life rather than of- 
fense against God, 98 

Slaten, A. W., 25 

Smith, G. B., 263, 280 

Smith, Henry B., 160 

Speer, Robert E., 320 

Spencer, 138, 238, 240 

State, separate church from, 98 

Strategy, liberalism weak in, 92 

Sunday, Billy, 264 

Sunday, observance of, an _ evi- 
dence for the resurrection, 340 

Synod of Philadelphia, 372 


Taylor, Jeremy, 41 
Tel-el-Amarna tablets, 142 
Temple, Archbishop, 412 
Thomas, W. H. Griffith, 231 
Thousand years, 1 

Torrey, 361 

Tractarians, 302 

Tyndall, 235, 239 

Tyson, Stuart L., 55 


Unitarians; are modernists Uni- 
tarians? 4, 10; a Unitarian view 
of the controversy, 392; quoted 
by Bishop Manning, 388; Uni- 


452 SELECTED 


tarians anticipated modernist po- 
sitions, 392 


van Dyke, Henry, 13, 99 

Vatke, 137, 138 

Vedder, 90 

Virchow, 239 

Virgin birth of Jesus, Bible state- 
ments, ata: statements of 
creeds, 17, 20, 21, 23; meaning of 
creed se 368; the issue sum- 
marized, 9-11; good taste offended 
by public discussion, 105; no- 
where contradicted in Bible, 34; 
not impossible for God, 34; not 
unreasonable, 35; essential, 322, 
324; supposed parallels not such, 
I4I, 319; true because Bible is 
true, 311; undoubtedly genuine 
part of record, 313; Old Testa- 
ment indications, 314; other New 
Testament declarations confirm 
it, 316; life and character of 
Jesus corroborate it, 317; story 
too early to be legend, 320; Jesus 
adored while living, 320;  biol- 
ogy says agamogenesis possible, 
321; not ground of belief in deity 
of Christ but congruous there- 
with, 369; birth stories are myth 
and legend, 105; not less valu- 
able therefore, 106; parallel 
story of Augustus, 106; most ob- 
jectors think Jesus legitimate son 
of Joseph, 35; contrary charge 
unfounded, 10; not essential, 325; 
historically doubtful, 328; based 
on false theory of human nature, 
330; mention in Nicene Creed 
only incidental, 415; Bible justi- 
fies both views, 418; how mod- 


ARTICLES 


ernists can repeat creeds, 420; 
answering of objections not suf- 
ficient, 438; no thoroughly edu- 
cated man believes it literally, 


439. 
Vocabulary, modernize the religious, 
96 


Waagen, 277 

Wallace, A. R., 242 

Warfield, B. B., 324 

Watts, 163, 172 

Wellhausen, 134, 139, 147 

West, 166 

Westminster Confession, 5, 11; 
passages from, 18-20; its system 
of doctrine binding on Presby- 
terian ministers, 375; not every 
proposition binding, 370, 405; nor 
merely “essential doctrines,” 371; 
sets forth Reformed type of the- 
ology, 376; Presbyterian minis- 
ters must believe what it says 
about Christ, 377; will make 
Presbyterian church leader in 
present conflict, 378; contains two 
types of doctrine, 397; attitude 
of early American Presbyterians, 
401; it disclaims infallibility, 
405; Adopting Act of 1729, 405; 
differing interpretations allowed 
by reunions of Presbyterian 
church, 406; makes Spirit of God 
supreme judge, 406; does not as- 
sert inerrancy of Bible, 407 

Whately, 177 

Willett, 29 

Wilson, Robert Dick, 312 

Wood-Jones, 246 

Worcester, 424 


Zenos, 132, 133 





Wi ll) i) 


3 0695 


Date Due 


mFS 2 i aa a 
1 en . PALA ae be ME) 
ere sees wn at A 
M db » 












